
Class 

Book ' \J 



PRESENTED BY 



y 



/ 



f f4 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 



A SOCIOLOGICAL AND LEGAL STUDY 



BASED CHIEFLY ON THE WORKS 



OF 



THE ATTIC ORATORS 



A DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 



CHARLES ALBERT SAVAGE 



BALTIMORE 
1907 



\^ 



^ 



b' 




BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 



Gift 
The UniTersity 

15 JP08 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Bibliography ix 

Prefatory Notes xi 

Chapter I. Introduction i 

Materials for our Sketch — Isaeus the Delineator of Social 
Life — Isaeus the Jurist — Isaeus the Stylist — Isaeus' Unique 
Position. 

Chapter II. The Religious Feeling in Athenian Private Life 5 

The Religious Feeling which pervades Greek Literature — The 
Feeling of the Greeks for the Dead — Outbreak of Feeling after 
Arginusae — Care of the Graves and Offerings at the Tombs — 
Sensitiveness of the Spirit of the Departed — Feeling for the 
Dead as seen in the " Antigone " — Influence of the Spirit of the 
Dead — Fear of a " Desolate Heritage " — Religious Duties of the 
Heir. 

Chapter III. The Attitude of the State toward the Family 
AND the Religious Cult 17 

Motives of the State in encouraging Religious Observances — 
Religious Feeling as seen in the " Antigone "—The State af- 
fected by the Neglect of Religious Rites — Political Motives of 
the State for preventing the Alienation of Inheritances. 

Chapter IV. The Position of Athenian Women during the 
Period of the Attic Orators 22 

The High Position of Homeric Women — Reasons assigned 
for the Athenian Woman's Unenviable Position — Inferior Posi- 
tion of Athenian Women — Meagre Education of Athenian 
Girls — The Secluded Life of Athenian Girls — The Secluded 
Life of Athenian Women — Legal Incapacity of Athenian 
Women — Strict Seclusion not Universal — Greek Writers' Un- 
favorable Attitude toward Women — Attitude of the Philoso- 



VI TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

phers — Attitude of the Dramatic Poets — Mahaffy's Optimistic 
Views — Attitude of the Lyric Poets — Our General Impressions 
of the Situation — Effect upon Society of Woman's Secluded 
Life. 

Chapter V. The Athenian Marriage 46 

Restrictions in Marriage — Marriage between Relatives — Age 
for Marriage — Social Position in Marriage — Marriage from the 
Man's Standpoint — Marriage of the Heiress with the Nearest 
of Kin — The Father chooses his Son's Wife — The Father gives 
the Daughter in Marriage — Brothers betroth Sisters — ^A Dying 
Husband betroths his Wife — The Betrothal — Gloomy Aspects 
of the Athenian Marriage — Frequency of Divorce — Husbands 
give their Wives to Others — Inheritance Laws sometimes ter- 
minate Marriages — Double Moral Standard of the Athenians — 
Divorce easily accomplished — Status of the Widow — The 
Dowry — The Dowry originally Purchase Money — Objects and 
Advantages of the Dowry — Concubinage — Difficulties of the 
Problem — Buermann's Theory — Motives and Ideals in Mar- 
riage — Ignoble Marriage Ideals — Ideals of Marriage as seen 
in Comedy — Impressions derived from the Orators — Attitude of 
the Philosophers — Higher Ideals also found — Ideals as seen 
in the Lyric and Tragic Poets — Story of Acontius and Cydippe 
— Concluding Reflections. 

Chapter VI. The Relations of Parents and Children 88 

Limitations of the Athenian Father's Power — Acknowledg- 
ment and Repudiation of Children — Infanticide — The Mother's 
Oath — The Son's Inheritance Rights — Duties of the Son — Atti- 
tude of the State as to the Son's Duties — Father and Daughter 
— The " Heiress " and her Son — Disinheritance — Legitimate 
Children — Illegitimate Children — No Legal Affinity between 
Mother and Son — The Stepmother. 

Chapter VII. The Adopted Son and his Relations to his 
Adoptive Father 115 

Difference between the Ancient and the Modern Family — 
The Beneficent Influence of Adoption — Contrast between 
Adoption at Athens and at Rome — Motives for Adoption — Re- 
strictions in Adoption — Marriage of Daughter and Adoptive 
Son — Limitations of Adoptive Son's Power— Adoption under 
a Will and " Inter Vivos " — Posthumous Adoption — Adoption 
not always' perpetually Binding — The Adopted Son and his 
Original Family — The Adopted Son and the State — Adoption 
of Relatives — Adoption of Daughters — Ceremonies of Adoption. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS VII 

PAGE 

Chapter VIII. Leading Aspects of the Athenian Inheritance 
System 128 

Leading Ideas in Athenian Succession — Preference for Males 
— No " Melancholy Succession " among the Athenians — In- 
heritance Rights of Collaterals — General Characteristics of 
Athenian Succession — Recklessness of Athenian Tribunals. 

Chapter IX. Conclusion 134 

Leading Aspects of Athenian Family Life — Our Final 
Impressions. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Becker, W. A. 

Blass, F. 
Blumner, H. 

buermann, h. 



Campbell, L. 
Dickinson, G. L. 
Gardner & Jevons. 
Gilbert, G. 
Grote, G. 



Hermann, K. F. 
Hruza, E. 

Jebb, R. C. 

Jebb, R. C. 
Jebb, R. C. 
Jones, W. (Sir Wm.) 
Keller, A. G. 
Lubbock, J. 
Mahaffy, J. P. 
Mahaffy, J. P. 
Maine, H. S. 
McLennan, J. F. 



Meier & Schomann. 
Morgan, L. H. 
MoY, L. 



Charicles — Private Life of the 

Ancient Greeks. London, 1895. 

Die attische Beredsamkeit. Leipzig, 1887. 

The Home Life of the Ancient 

Greeks. London, 1895. 

Drei Studien auf dem Gehiet des 

attischen Rechts, Jahrh. f. cl. 

PhiloL, 1877/8, Supplementband 

9, pp. 569 ff. 
Religion in Greek Literature. London, 1898. 

The Greek View of Life. New York, 1906. 

Manual of Greek Antiquities. London, 1898. 

Greek Constitutional Antiquities. London, 1895. 
History of Greece, Vol. 2, (Part 

i), Chap. XX ; Vol. 3, (Part 11), 

Chap. X, XL New York, 1857. 

Lehrbuch der griechischen Anti- 

quitdten. Freiburg, 1889. 

Beitrdge zur Geschichte des griech- 
ischen und romischen Familien- 

rechtes. Leipzig, 1892. 

Attic Orators from Antiphon to 

Isaeus. London, 1893. 

Selections from the Attic Orators. London, 1888. 



Cambridge, 1900. 

London, 1799. 
New York, 1902. 
New York, 1882. 

London, 1894. 

London, 1896. 

London, 1894. 



Sophocles — The Antigone. 

Works. 

Homeric Society. 

Origin of Civilisation. 

Social Life in Greece. 

Greek Life and Thought. 

Ancient Law. 

Studies in Ancient History (Com- 
prising Primitive Marriage, Kin- 
ship in Ancient Greece, Bach- 
ofen's " Das Mutterrecht ") . New York, 1886. 

Der attische Process. Berlin, 1887. 

Ancient Society. New York, 1877. 

Etude sur les Plaidoyers d'Isee. Paris, 1876. 



X 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



MULLER, O. 



Peck, H. T. 



Perrot, G. 
Perrot, G. 

Philippi, a. 



ROEDER, W. 

Schafer, a. 
schomann, g. f. 
schomann, g. f. 
SusEMiHL & Hicks. 

Westermarck, E. 
Wyse, W. 
Zimmermann, R. 



Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 

attischen Burger- und Eherechts, 

Jahrh. f. cl. PhiloL, 1899, Sub- 

plementband 25, pp. 667 jfif. 
Harper's Diet, of Class. Lit. and 

Antiq.; articles on Adoptio, Con- 

cuhina, Dowry, Epiclerus, Heres, 

Matrimonium. New York, 1897. 

Droit Public d'Athenes. Paris, 1869. 

L'Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire 

a Athene s. Paris, 1873. 

Ueber Einige Reden des Isaios und 

Demosthenes, Jahrb. f. cl. PhiloL, 

25, 1879, pp. 413 ff. 
Beitrdge zur Erkldrung und Kritik 

des Isaios. Jena, 1880. 

Demosthenes und seine Zeit. Leipzig, 1887. 

Antiquities of Greece. London, 1880. 

Isaei Orationes XL Greifswald, 1831. 

The Politics of Aristotle, Books 

I-V. London, 1894. 

The History of Human Marriage. London, 1891. 

The Speeches of Isaeus. Cambridge, 1904. 

De Nothorum Athenis Condicione. Berlin, 1886. 



EDITIONS OF THE MORE IMPORTANT CLASSICAL 
AUTHORS CITED IN THIS WORK. 



Andocides, Blass; Lysias, Isaeus, Scheibe; Isocrates, Benseler & 
Blass; Demosthenes, Dindorf; Aeschines, Lycurgus, Blass; Xenophon, 
Oeconomicus, Dindorf; Memorabilia, Gilbert; Homer, Dindorf; Lyric 
Poets, Buchholz; Aeschylus, Weil; Sophocles, Dindorf; Euripides, 
Nauck; Aristophanes, Bergk; Plato, Hermann; Aristotle, Politics, 
Susemihl & Hicks; Plutarch, Sintenis; Plautus, Goetz & Schoell; 
Terence, Fleckeisen. 



PREFATORY NOTES 



Of the authors named in the bibliography, the writer is 
especially indebted to Perrot, Jebb, Becker, Meier & Scho- 
mann, Mahaffy, Jones (Sir William), and Wyse. It was Per- 
rot's charming and sympathetic work, UEloquence Politique 
et Judiciaire a Athenes, which first awakened the writer's inter- 
est in Athenian ancestor worship and inheritance law; and 
Jebb, especially in his Attic Orators, and in the introduction 
and notes of his beautiful edition of Sophocles' Antigone, has 
at all times been exceedingly helpful and stimulating. Too 
much cannot be said in praise of the learned work of Becker, 
whose Charicles has of course become a household word with 
students of Greek everywhere. No person interested in Greek 
private life can afford to be without this valuable book, which 
has been constantly consulted by the writer at many stages of 
his work. Of the scholarly and exhaustive treatise of Meier 
& Schomann little need be said; this standard work is of 
course invaluable for all who are in any way interested in 
Athenian public or private law. The learned works of Blass, 
Schomann, and Hermann, and Moy's charming treatise on 
Isaeus, are too well known and too highly regarded to need 
commendation ; the writer has found them exceedingly valua- 
ble. To Mahaffy's delightful and suggestive works. Social 
Life in Greece 3ind Greek Life and Thought, the writer cheer- 
fully acknowledges his obligation ; he also takes this opportu- 
nity to express his indebtedness to the admirable work of Sir 
William Jones, that pioneer in Isaean study. And finally, 
Wyse's commentary on Isaeus has been of very great assist- 
ance to the writer. This edition of Isaeus is a learned and 
comprehensive work, and one which may perhaps be said to 
mark an epoch in Isaean study. It is a work which no ad- 
vanced student of Greek oratory can dispense with, not only 
because of the large amount of valuable information which it 
contains, and the immense amount of research which it rep- 
resents, but because — as is indicated in the chapter following — 



XII PREFATORY NOTES 

it shows the darker side of Greek oratory; in other words, it 
exhibits in a striking manner the characteristic faults of a 
representative Greek advocate. Wyse has written his work 
chiefly with the purpose of impugning the veracity and dis- 
crediting the authority of Isaeus as an advocate and interpreter 
of Attic law. That he has succeeded in his remarkable pur- 
pose to a considerable extent, in so far as the veracity and in- 
tegrity of the orator are concerned, cannot be doubted; but 
it will also be evident to the impartial student of Greek oratory 
that Wyse, in his spirit of bitter hostility to Isaeus, has at 
times gone altogether too far ; that he is not always impartial, 
and is sometimes unfair in his attitude toward the great master 
of Attic law. One cannot avoid a feeling of regret that in 
so scholarly and comprehensive a work the author should 
almost invariably have suppressed even that commendation of 
Isaeus' stylistic merits which most critics have cheerfully 
accorded him. Valuable as the work of the English scholar 
unquestionably is, it would nevertheless be likely to prejudice 
the average student against the oratorical masters of the Old 
World, unless studied in conjunction with other works more 
impartial or more sympathetic in their tone — such works as 
those of Perrot, or of that most delightful of English human- 
ists, the late Sir Richard Jebb. 



The writer has used the word " Demosthenic " with refer- 
ence to the whole body of writings passing under the orator's 
name. He has used the word " Pseudo-Demosthenes," for the 
sake of convenience, with reference to the orations classed as 
spurious or doubtful in the Dindorf edition. 

It has seemed desirable to the writer to include in the body 
of this dissertation the chapter treating of the position of 
Athenian women, although the chapter deals with a number of 
topics outside the relations of the family. As this dissertation 
will perhaps be read by persons interested in sociology, ancient 
law, history, or other subjects, as well as by classical scholars, 
the writer has deemed it best to treat the subject as indicated, 
in order that certain of the phenomena discussed in the later 
chapters may be the more readily appreciated. For the sake of 
clearness, therefore, and also for the sake of unity and the 



PREFATORY NOTES XIII 

logical development of the thought, the chapter in question has 
been written and placed where it stands. 

The writer has referred incidentally to a number of works 
not included in the bibliography. 



The author has found it a difficult matter to confine this work 
within the bounds of a dissertation. It has developed quite 
beyond his expectations ; and he fully realizes that certain of 
the topics which have been discussed in the following chapters 
could readily be expanded into dissertations — and in fact have 
been treated with great elaboration in some instances, especially 
by German scholars. The writer has not, however, deemed it 
advisable to multiply details and references beyond a certain 
point ; in fact, such a multiplication of minutiae would be im- 
practicable in a dissertation wide in its scope and somewhat 
general in its character. While aiming at conciseness, the 
author nevertheless entertains the hope that nothing has been 
sacrificed which is in any way vital and essential to the 
subject. 

In case the bibliography, to some critics, may not seem 
sufficiently exhaustive, the writer desires to state that a very 
considerable part of the work of enlarging and completing this 
dissertation, and preparing it for the press, has been done 
under difficulties, at a distance from any large classical library.* 
It is the writer's intention to prosecute further, at some future 
time, his investigations in the sphere of Greek private life, as 
he has opportunity. 



The writer takes this occasion to express his indebtedness 
to those members of the Johns Hopkins Faculty whose courses 
he followed while in attendance at that institution. To Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve he is especially indebted for inspiration, 
counsel, and guidance ; and he also takes pleasure in acknowl- 
edging his obligations to Professor Warren (now of Harvard) 
and to Professors Smith, Spieker, Bloomfield, and Miller, of 
Johns Hopkins. 



* The absence of adequate library facilities has been due to the 
destruction by fire of the classical libraries of the University of Minne- 
sota, with which institution the writer has been for some time connected. 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY. 



CHAPTER I. 
Introduction. 



The following discussion of Athenian private life, in its 
more important sociological and legal aspects, is based chiefly 
on the works of the Attic orators, and especially on the ora- 
tions of Isaeus, Demosthenes, and Lysias. Valuable material 
has also been found in the works of authors belonging to other 
departments of Greek literature, and particularly in the dra- 
matic poets, Xenophon, and the philosophers ; 
Materials for for it is obvious that the different departments 
our Sketch. of a nation's literature represent different 
points of view and different tendencies of 
thought, and that the contributions of every department should 
receive due consideration, if one would gain clear and satisfac- 
tory conceptions of the private life of the people as a whole. 
Moreover, we shall observe that in the orators — valuable 
though they are — the formal and legal aspects of Athenian life 
are emphasized ; and it is obvious that no conceptions of a na- 
tion's life, based exclusively upon such aspects as these, would 
be entirely adequate and satisfactory. 

Of all the Attic orators, the writer is most deeply indebted 
to Isaeus, inasmuch as the works of this author contain so 
much of the material necessary for reconstructing the family 
life of the Athenians, and for understanding the influences by 
which that life was dominated. And if the 
Isaeus the pictures which Isaeus draws are not always 

Delineator of complete in detail, — if, as Sir William Jones 
Social Life. quaintly remarks (Works, Vol. iv, p. 240), 
" some few clouds and dark places are left in 
them," — we have only to place beside them the clear-cut 
sketches of Lysias and the powerful and realistic portrayals of 
Demosthenes, in order to form a reasonably clear and satis- 
factory conception of Athenian private life in its formal and 
legal aspects. And yet in Isaeus the essential outlines are 



2 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

clear ; and the valuable sociological data contained in his works 
render them especially important. Sir Richard Jebb says of 
Isaeus : " There is scarcely any Greek writer who so much 
helps us to understand the meaning which the old Greeks at- 
tached to the family. The light which he gives is not merely 
on scenic detail, but also on those relations of the actors which 
touch the springs of social life " {Selections from the Attic 
Orators, Introd. pp. 17-18). 

As illustrative of the accuracy of these observations, we may 
refer briefly to the narrative contained in Isaeus' 6th oration. 
Here we read of an aged man who has been blessed in his 
family ties and has prospered in his enterprises, — whose life, 
in short, has been exceptionally happy, — but who finally forms 
an unfortunate attachment, enters upon a career of vice, and is 
utterly ruined. He abandons and humiliates his family, loses 
his health, his reason, and a large part of his property, and 
eventually dies under peculiarly sad circumstances, with no 
member of his family near to minister to him in his last hours. 
The story is told with dramatic force, and the scenes are por- 
trayed with wonderful vividness. But apart from the interest 
which the reader feels in the narrative, he gains much informa- 
tion with respect to the life and environment of the Athenian 
family. The relations existing between the father and the 
son, the dependent position of the wife and the daughters, the 
status of the widow, the relations of the brothers, the fear of 
a " desolate heritage," the institution of adoption, the obliga- 
tions of the family to the State, the importance of the religious 
observances, the inheritance rights of the sons and daughters, 
and the questions of bigamy and concubinage, — all these topics 
present themselves in this single oration. 

But it is not merely as a painter of ancient life and manners 
that Isaeus appeals to us ; his extant speeches also constitute a 
series of legal documents which are of importance and interest 
for modern students of law. His orations are re- 
Isaeus garded as " the oldest documents in the world which 
the illustrate with minuteness and detail the workings of a 

Jurist. Testamentary Law " (Jebb, Attic Orators, Vol. 11, 
• P- 315)- And as illustrative of the peculiar import- 
ance and significance of inheritance law, especially as applied 



INTRODUCTION , 3 

to the Athenians, Perrot well says : " In all the rules which 
govern the life of a nation, there is none in which accident 
and the personal views of the legislator play a less important 
part; there is none which perpetuates itself longer and which 
transmits in a more faithful manner the most secret instincts, 
the most obscure and the most profound sentiments of this or 
that variety of the human soul. . . . Everything here * is 
dominated by certain primitive instincts and certain elementary 
ideas ; by the manner in which this or that race has constituted 
the family, conceived of life, and pictured to itself the destiny 
of man after death. For modern science, which labors with so 
impassioned a curiosity to create anew the forms of vanished 
states of society, the preservation of these orations of Isaeus 
is a rare good fortune " {U Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a 
Athenes, p. 358). 

Of Isaeus himself, and his unique position in the domain of 
inheritance law, Perrot remarks : " No ancient author has 
aided us as much as Isaeus in understanding the laws regu- 
lating succession, and in reestablishing them in their logical 
unity and antique originality. . . . And the orator does not 
confine himself to the texts he cites to establish his case; he 
seeks to disengage from them the thought with which the 
legislator was inspired ; he rises to the principles and axioms of 
law. . . . He is at all times the jurist, engaged either in 
brightly illuminating the principles of Athenian law, or in 
pointing out their omissions and defects " {Ibid. pp. 358, 359, 

389)- 

Unfortunately, Isaeus has another side, and a side which 
Perrot, with all his delightful sympathy and enthusiasm, is 
inclined to overlook. A careful student of the Attic orators, 
and especially one who reads Isaeus with the aid of Wyse's 
copious commentary, cannot fail to be impressed with the fact 
that the Athenian advocates were not always actuated by the 
loftiest ideals ; that they were sometimes unscrupulous, and not 
infrequently resorted to trickery and sophistry in order to gain 
a point and influence the tribunals. Wyse has conclusively 
shown that Isaeus, at times, employed questionable, unfair, and 
perhaps even dishonorable tactics, in order to gain a point. 

*The writer is referring to the domain of inheritance law. 



4 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

And yet such faults as these were characteristic of the age and 
of the society in which the orator Hved; and although at 
times he may have shown himself to be an unscrupulous advo- 
cate, yet, in my judgment, neither Wyse nor any other adverse 
critic has succeeded in dislodging Isaeus from the commanding 
position which he holds as a great and authoritative interpreter 
of Athenian law. 

But it is not merely as an interesting delineator of ancient 
life and manners, and as a distinguished jurist, that Isaeus 
appeals to us. As a great stylist, this reputed teacher of 
Demosthenes has strongly impressed himself upon classical 

scholars. For, although Isaeus' extant works deal 
Isaeus almost exclusively with inheritance law, yet his ora- 
the tions are far from being monotonous in style or 

Stylist, treatment; his language is characterized at times by 

great power and beauty, and the variety of his style 
is admirably adapted to the varying phases of his subject- 
matter. He is, in short, a literary artist of a high order; and 
his speeches compare favorably with the private orations of 
the great Demosthenes in beauty, vigor, and persuasiveness. 
Sir William Jones, in comparing Isaeus with Demosthenes, 
naively remarks: "He (Isaeus) would probably have thun- 
dered with equal energy in the assembly of Athenian citizens, 
if his temper and inclination had not induced him to prefer the 
certain advantages of a very useful profession to the precarious 
favors which the giddy populace bestow at their pleasure " 
{Works, Vol. IV, p. 13). 

It will readily be acknowledged, I think, even by the casual 
observer, that Isaeus — that " learned jurist, finished rhetori- 
cian, able and impassioned pleader " * — holds an 
Isaeus' important and distinctly unique position in Greek 
Unique literature. And he should appeal not only to clas- 
Position. sical scholars, students of laws, sociologists, and 
antiquarians, but to historical scholars as well, — in 
short, to an enlightened and cultivated public during every 
period of human thought. 

* Perrot, op. cit. p. 405. 



CHAPTER II. 
The Religious Feeling in Athenian Private Life. 

In approaching the subject of Athenian private Hfe, we are 
impressed at the outset by the strong religious feeling which 
permeated the life of the individual, dominated the relations of 
the family, and strikingly manifested itself in the attitude of the 
State toward the family as a whole, and toward the individuals 
constituting the family. I do not refer primarily to the feel- 
ing of reverence for the great Olympian deities, such as is re- 
vealed so frequently in the pages of Herodotus and Xenophon, 
for example ; I refer rather to the homage universally offered 
by the Greeks to their dead, and particularly to the ancestor 
worship which constituted so prominent a feature of Athenian 
life. And it will be observed that this religious feeling, in its 

various manifestations, is not confined to 
The Religious any one department of Greek literature; 
Feeling which it reveals itself not only in the elevated 
pervades Greek language of poetry, in the calm utterances 
Literature. of the philosophers, and in the unimpas- 

sioned narrative of the historian, but — 
what is most significant of all — in the deliberate and impressive 
language of the law courts. That the practical Athenian 
should have regarded as the most fitting climax of a long and 
complicated legal argument an impassioned appeal to the judges 
to remember the sacred obligations to the dead, speaks volumes 
for the intensity and reality of the religious feeling in Greek 
life.* 

*It is worthy of note, however, that the primitive religious element 
was not wholly predominant in the Athenian system of succession, as it 
was in the Hindoo system; nor, on the other hand, can the Athenian 
system be likened to the Roman testamentary law of Cicero's time, 
which had separated itself from religion. Sir Richard Jebb remarks: 
"The Athenian system belongs essentially to the same stage as the 
Hindoo system. It has not, like the Roman law of Cicero's time, passed 
that point of development at which testation proper begins. But, in 
spirit, the Athenian system may be regarded as intermediate between 
the Hindoo and the Roman" (Attic Orators, Vol. n, p. 317; cf. Maine, 
Ancient Law, pp. 192 ff.). 



6 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

It is evident that from time immemorial there existed a deep- 
seated conviction among the Greeks that the person of the dead 
was sacred, and was entitled to receive every honor at the 
hands of the living; and that the deprivation of such honors 
would inevitably entail suffering upon the spirit of the de- 
parted. Sir Richard Jebb, in the introduc- 
The Feeling tion of his edition of Sophocles' Antigone 

of the Greeks (pp. xxii-xxiii), in speaking of the atti- 
for the Dead. tude of the early Greeks toward the dead, re- 
marks : " It is true that the legends of the 
heroic age afford some instances in which a dead enemy is 
left unburied, as a special mark of abhorrence. This dis- 
honor brands the exceptionally base crime of Aegisthus ( Soph. 
El. 1487 ff.). Yet these same legends show that, from a 
very early period, Hellenic feeling was shocked at the thought 
of carrying enmity beyond the grave, and withholding the 
rites on which the welfare of the departed spirit was be- 
lieved to depend. . . . Achilles maltreated the dead Hector. 
Yet even there, the Iliad expresses the Greek feeling by the 
beautiful and touching fable that the gods themselves miracu- 
lously preserved the corpse from all defacement and from ali 
corruption, until at last the due obsequies were rendered to 
it in Troy (//. 24, 411 ff.)." 

In connection with this theme, we may also note that Tyler, 
in commenting on Plato, Apology, 32 B, remarks that the 
Ajax and also the Antigone of Sophocles are prolonged to a 
considerable extent beyond the catastrophe, in order that the 
minds of the hearers may be relieved from the feeling of 
horror which was called forth by the thought of a deceased 
person remaining unburied. 

A striking passage from the Supplices of Euripides (524 ff.) 
illustrates this feeling. Here Theseus declares his determina- 
tion to bury the bodies of the chiefs slain before Thebes, 
thereby preserving the spirits of the departed from dreadful 
sufferings, while at the same time observing the universal law 
of the Greeks: 

vcKpovs he rovs Bavoprasy ov ^XdnTav TTo'Xti' 
ov8 dvdpoKfiriTas 7rpo<r<pepa>v dyaviaSf 
Bd'^ai diKai&, TOP JJapeW'qpap pofiop 
arci^ayp. rt tovtodp earlp ov KoXSts e^opj 



THE RELIGIOUS FEELING IN GREEK LIFE y 

Lysias strikes the same chord in his speech Agcdnst Eratos- 
thenes (§96), when he endeavors to arouse the indignation of 
his hearers by reminding them that the Thirty Tyrants, in 
addition to their other crimes, deliberately deprived their 
victims of the customary burial, " thinking that their own 
power was too firmly established to be touched by the ven- 
geance of Heaven." (Cf. Id. 13, 45; 19, 41.) Isocrates (14, 
55) alludes to the importance of performing the funeral rites, 
and compares the suffering of the unburied dead with that of 
the living who have been deprived of their native country and 

of other bleSSmgS : eVn §' ovk Xaov kukov ovb^ ofxoiov Tovs 7€Bv(5)Tas 
racfiris elpyfcrdai kol tovs ^mptos narpidos aTTOcrTepiiaBai koX tS>v aWcov dyaO&v 
cnravTav, aWa to pev BeivoTepov tois Ka)\vov(nv t] toIs aTvxovai, k. t. X. 

The terms of reprobation in which the Greek orators always 
refer to any neglect of burial honors clearly give evidence of 
the universal feeling (see Lys. 31, 21 ; Dem. 25, 54) ; and the 
very words used to designate the funeral rites — ra diKaia, to. 
popi^opiva, Ta Trpo(Tr)KopTa — ^Unmistakably indicate the obligatory 
character of the funeral observances. We cannot doubt that 
it was a fearful doom in the eyes of the Greeks " to be cast 
out unburied," and that the prospect of such a fate would bring 
dismay even to the stout-hearted (see Eur. Suppl. 540-541). 

A striking illustration of the Greek feeling for the dead is 
seen in the behavior of the Athenians after the battle of 
Arginusae. It will be remembered that on this occasion the 
commanding Athenian generals, whether for 
Outbreak of the best of military reasons or not, failed to 
Feeling after gather up for burial the bodies of the slain, 
Arginusae. and to rescue the imperilled crews of the dis- 
abled ships ; that they were hastily condemned 
to death by the enraged populace, and that six of them were 
actually executed, notwithstanding the decisive victory which 
they had won (see Xen. Hellen. i, 6, 26 ff. ; i, 7, 4 ff. ; Plato, 
Apol. 32 B ; Lys. 12, 36). Perhaps no episode in Athenian 
history could better illustrate the intensity and reality of the 
feeling of the Greeks with respect to their obligations to the 
dead. In connection with this deplorable event, however, we 
must remember that the apparently unpardonable neglect of 
the generals to rescue the living may have enraged the Athe- 



8 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

nians fully as much as the failure to collect the dead for burial 
(see Grote, History of Greece, Vol. 8, pp. 175 ff.) ; neverthe- 
less, several commentators suppose that the offense had to do 
solely with the neglect to care for the dead {e. g. Stallbaum on 
Plato, Apol. 32 B), and Diodorus says nothing of the living 
(13, 100 ff.). 

But merely to bury the dead and perform the funeral honors 
was not deemed sufficient to insure the welfare and tranquillity 
of the departed ; the graves must also be regularly visited, 

offerings to the deceased must be made at ap- 
Care of the pointed intervals, and the tombs must be scrupu- 
Graves and lously cared for. The sacredness of the latter 
Offerings at obligation is well brought out in an impressive 
the Tombs, passage from the Persae of Aeschylus (402 ff.), 

wherein the Greeks are called upon to fight for 
the freedom of their country, their wives, their children, the 
temples of the gods, and the tombs of their forefathers. So, 
also, in a striking passage from the orator Lycurgus (In 
Leocr. §8), the speaker calls for vengeance upon the man who 
has abandoned his native country and forsaken the graves of 
his ancestors. Xenophon tells us {Mem. 2, 2, 13) that at the 
examination of the Athenian archons it was customary to 
inquire of the candidate whether he had neglected the graves 
of his forefathers. Many passages from Greek authors are 
found which emphasize not only this duty of caring for the 
tomb, but also the obligation to visit the grave at appointed 
intervals and make offerings in honor of the deceased (see 
Poll. 8, 146; Aristoph. Lysist. 611 ff. ; Isae. 8, 39). Especially 
do we find in the works of the orators references to the annual 
offerings made at the tomb (see Isae. i, 10; 2, §§io, 46; 6, 
§§51. 65; 7, §§30, 32; 9, §§7, 36) ; and apart from the orators 
we have abundant evidence of the observance of sacred rites 
at appointed intervals (see Hdt. 4, 26; Plato, Laws, 717 E; 
Stob. Flor. 44, 40) . The tragic poets speak of libations offered 
at the tomb, consisting of milk, honey, water, wine, oil (Aesch. 
Pers. 607 ff.; Soph. El. 893 ff.; Eur. Or. iii ff.; J. T. 156 ff.; 
EL 509 ff.). Plutarch tells us how, during this time, the 
Archon of Plataea sacrificed a bull over the funeral mound 
of the Greek heroes who fell in that famous battle, and 



THE RELIGIOUS FEELING IN GREEK LIFE g 

invited the dead fVt t6 delnvov koI ttjv alfxaKovplav (Aristid. 21^ . 
Lucian says that the souls of the departed are nourished by the 
smoke and incense of the sacrifices, and the wine offered in 
Hbation; and that the spirit of the dead would actually suffer 
with starvation if there were no friend or kinsman living to 
perform such offices (Charon, 22; De Luctu, 9). And how- 
ever ironical and sceptical may be the spirit which character- 
izes Lucian, we cannot doubt that he is here actually reflecting 
Greek feeling. 

Again, not only were the spirits of the departed believed to 

be constantly dependent upon the ministrations of the living, 

but it was deemed essential that friends, and. 

Sensitiveness if possible, relatives of the dead, should per- 

of the Spirit of form these offices. The sensitiveness of the 

the Departed. departed on this point is forcibly expressed 

in a passage from the Ajax of Sophocles 

(1393 ff.), wherein we observe that it was deemed a grievous 

thing for the dead if enemies approached his tomb : 

(Tf d , & yepaiov ajrepfia Aaeprov narpos, 
Td(f)ov fiev OKvat rovd inf^aveiv tau, 
jxf] T«j5 BavovTi rovTO dvax^pes noa>' 

And, conversely, the thought that the approach of a relative to 
the tomb was acceptable to the departed is illustrated in a 
striking passage from Isaeus (9, 4). Here the friends of the 
deceased Astyphilus bring to the tomb the speaker's father, 
who was a near kinsman of the departed, " knowing well that 
Astyphilus would welcome him." The same general thought 
finds expression in Isaeus 9, 36-37, where the judges are im- 
plored not to vote in such a manner that the bitter personal 
enemies of the deceased shall officiate at his tomb, rather than 
the lawful heir (cf. §19). Similarly, in Isaeus i, 10, a certain 
Cleonymus is alarmed at the thought that his personal enemy 
may gain possession of his property and offer the customary 
sacrifices after his death ; this, the speaker declares, would be 
terrible. Still another interesting passage from Isaeus, illus- 
trating the same feeling, occurs in the second oration (§47). 
Here the speaker is emphasizing the thought that unless he, 
the adopted son of the deceased, be permitted to possess the 



lO THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

inheritance and honor the dead, the latter will actually suffer 
in Hades ; and, addressing the judges, he passionately exclaims : 
" Grant aid to us and to him also who is with the dead ; and do 
not allow him — I beseech you by the gods and the immortal 
spirits — to be treated with ignominy by these men." So, also, 
in the opening paragraph of the same oration, the speaker re- 
marks upon the urgent need of aiding his deceased adoptive 
father, by performing the rites that devolve upon the heir. 
A similar passage is found in Pseudo-Demosthenes (43, 84), 
where the speaker cries out in behalf of the youthful claimant : 

Siofiai de Koi vfxav S apdpes diKaarai /cat iK€T€va> Kai dvri^oXa, fif] nepuSrjTf 
P-TjTi Tov iToida tovtopI v^piadePTa viro rovTcnVy p-TjTe tovs npoyovovs tovs 
TovTovl en fxaWop KaTa(f)popovfi€Povs rj pvp KaTa7r€(j)p6pr}PTai, . . . dXXa Tois 
T€ pofiois ^oTjdclre koI Ta>p reTeXcuTJ^Kortoz' inip.tkiicr6e, onois firj e^€pr}p.o6Tj 

avToiP 6 oUos, And in another impressive passage from the same 
speech (^6y), the speaker calls attention to the thpught that 
Apollo of Delphi and Solon the lawgiver command relatives 
to perform rites in honor of the departed, on the appointed 
days (cf. Ibid. §§62, 66). 

In the Antigone of Sophocles (450 ff.) occurs a most signifi- 
cant passage, showing that the Athenians looked upon the 

obligations to the dead as sent from Heaven. 
Feeling for the The king has demanded of Antigone whether 
Dead as seen in she knew of his edict forbidding that funeral 
the " Antigone." rites be paid her brother. She replies : 

" Yes, for it was not Zeus that published me 
that edict ; not such are the laws set among men by the justice 
who dwells with the gods below; nor deemed I that thy de- 
crees were of such force that a mortal could override the un- 
written and unfailing statutes of Heaven. For their life is not 
of today nor yesterday, but from all time, and no man knows 
when they were first put forth." * So, also, in line 519, Anti- 
gone says, " Hades demands these rites." (Cf. Lys. 12, 96.) 

Jebb, in the introduction of his Antigone (p. xxv), remarks 
that the heroine, who is the nearest of kin to the dead, " is ful- 
filling one of the most sacred and the most imperative duties 
known to Greek religion," in thus paying the funeral rites to 
her brother. 

* The rendering is Jebb's. 



THE RELIGIOUS FEELING IN GREEK LIFE n 

The foregoing passages clearly give evidence of the belief 
of the Greeks that the dead should be cared for and propitiated, 
and that members of the family or relatives should perform the 
sacred offices, whenever possible. Furthermore, we observe 
that not only were the tranquillity and welfare of the dead sup- 
posed to depend upon the devotion of the living, but that the 
deceased person, according to the view of the 
Influence Greeks, became immediately a protecting or 

of the Spirit avenging spirit, capable of giving or withhold- 
of the Dead, ing favors. This idea is brought out in a pas- 
sage from the Republic of Plato (427 B), 
wherein we are informed that Apollo of Delphi is to be re- 
garded as the authoritative source of the laws pertaining to the 
graves of the departed, and also of the ceremonies which are to 
be observed in order that the inhabitants of the other world 
may be propitiated (cf. Laws, 759 C if., 958 D). The same 
general thought is expressed still more forcibly in a passage 
from the Alcestis of Euripides (1000 ff.) ; here we observe 
that the heroine is scarcely dead before she is referred to by 
the chorus as a spiritual power, who may now be invoked and 
may grant favors to mortals. Especially noteworthy are lines 
1003-1004: 

vvv d eari fxaKaipa daifiayV' 

X<^''P } ^ TTOTVl J €V oe OOLrjS, 

Still another impressive passage, illustrating the same gen- 
eral thought, occurs at the opening of the Choephori of 
Aeschylus (vss. 4-5), in which Orestes, standing at his father's 
tomb, calls upon the dead to hear him.* 

One cannot fail to be profoundly impressed by the wide 

* In the Frogs of Aristophanes, after Aeschylus has been represented 
as quoting the passage above mentioned, and Euripides has criticised 
the repetition contained in kIvelv, amvaai, Dionysus remarks (vss. 
1175-1176) : 

TedvrjKdaLV yap kTieyev, o juoxOrjpe ov, 
oig ov6e rplg Tieyovreq k^iKvovueda. 

Here Dionysus is alluding to the ancient custom of thrice bidding fare- 
well to the dead (see Od. 9, 62 ff.), and the remark is not to be seriously 
taken as indicating any lack of faith, among the Athenians at large, 
in the institution of ancestor worship. 



12 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

prevalence and the far-reaching influence, among the Greeks, 
of the worship of the dead, and particularly the worship of 
ancestors, dominating as it did the life of the individual and 
that of the family, and largely determining the relations of each 
to the State. For not only was the deified ancestor regarded 
as the protector of the individual and the family, but also — as 
I shall endeavor to show in the following chapter — as a pro- 
tector of the State. Perrot admirably sets forth the far- 
reaching influence of ancestor worship upon Athenian life, 
when he says : " The sentiment which attaches to one another 
the individuals in the family, the families in the clan, the clans 
in the phratry, the phratries in the tribe, the tribes in the state, 
.... is the belief in a common ancestor, the adoration of this 
first father, always conceived as real ; it is the respect with 
which that member of each group, to whom comes the honor 
of succeeding to the deified ancestry, sees himself surrounded. 
.... This is the principle which dominates all this hierarchy 
of associations ; this is the keystone which upholds all these 
concentric arches" {Droit Public d'Athenes, pp. 132, 133). 

We find in the ancestor worship of the Athenians — and 
especially when we consider in connection with this the obliga- 
tions to the State — explanations of many of the phenomena of 
Attic life which otherwise would be difficult to understand. 
We observe, also, that the head of an Athenian family was not 
actuated by a purely religious impulse or by entirely unselfish 
or patriotic motives, when, as the officiating priest of the 
family, in constant communication with the unseen world, he 
performed so zealously and regularly, year after year, the 
designated rites in honor of the dead. For it is evident that 
he expected to receive material blessings from the spirit of the 
departed, so long as he himself continued to discharge the 
sacred obligations imposed upon him, as the family's head and 
representative. Moreover, it is clear that the Athenian be- 
lieved that, after having faithfully served the ancestors during 
his life, he himself would be similarly honored by his heir after 
his own death, and that he regarded such homage as indispen- 
sable to his own future happiness (Plato, Hipp. Mai. 291 
D E). When we bear in mind this intense personal feeling 
of indebtedness to ancestors, obligations to the State and to 



THE RELIGIOUS FEELING IN GREEK LIFE 



13 



posterity, and expectation of benefits to be received after death 
at the hands of posterity, we more readily appreciate the im- 
portance, to the Athenian, of ancestor worship, and the soHci- 
tude everywhere manifested for an heir who should continue 
the family cult, perpetuate the family line, and become the 
father's representative in discharging the obligations to the 
State. The numerous references to ancestor worship which we 
encounter in the literature of the Greeks are, therefore, not 
surprising."^ 

Closely associated with the thought of devotion to the dead 
was the feeling of dread lest one should die and leave behind 

an inheritance without an heir. Such a con- 
Fear of a tingency was regarded by the Athenian with 
"Desolate horror; this was equivalent — as Perrot expresses 
Heritage." it — to " dying a double death " {U Eloquence 

Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes, p. 364) ; and 

* Ancestor worship is, of course, abundantly attested by sepulchral 
monuments (see Campbell, Religion in Greek Literature, pp. 228 ff.). 
It was evidently an institution of extreme antiquity, and widely preva- 
lent, not only among the Greeks, but among all, or nearly all ancient 
peoples of historical importance. Closely associated with this cult was 
hero worship, which probably originated in the worship of ancestors 
(see Campbell, op. cit. pp. 67, 130, 226). Of hero worship Campbell 
says : " This tendency remained a living power in Greece far into 
historical times ; we know that Hagnon and Brasidas were worshipped 
successively at Amphipolis, and the power of the local hero was the 
object of such vivid belief that the presence even of his image with the 

army was regarded as conducive to victory The hero present 

at his tomb was supposed to have all the human feelings of a living 
citizen. The vicissitudes of war, alliance, and colonization affected the 
fortunes of heroes as well as of living men. There were many tombs 
of Oedipus in many parts of Greece; for the Athenian, he was buried 
at Colonus; for the Boeotian, at Potniae; for the Corinthian, at 

Sicyon Orestes, though not a Dorian, was a powerful factor in 

the Spartan State, and not until his bones had been laid within Spartan 
ground, and a temple raised over them, could the Lacedaemonians be 
sure of supremacy in the Peloponnesus" (Ibid. p. 132). Elsewhere, 
Campbell remarks that in certain parts of Greece " wicked * heroes ' or 
disembodied spirits were known to rise out of their graves at night 
and devastate a region until they were propitiated or exorcised." . . . . 
Our authority adds : " The Attic heroes were of the nobler order, going 
forth in battle in great emergencies to defend their people, and extend- 
ing protection to the men of their tribe so long as they were fed with 
sacrifices at stated times" (Ibid. p. 227). 



14 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

many passages from Greek authors clearly indicate the atti- 
tude of the Athenians in this regard. Thus, Isaeus (7, 30) 
speaks of the precautions which all men take to insure the 
perpetuity of their line, " in order that they may not leave their 
homes destitute of heirs." (Cf. Isae. 6, 5.) Still stronger 
language is seen in a passage from Isaeus' 7th oration (§31), 
where the orator speaks of a house without an heir as one that 
had been " left desolate in a disgraceful .... and dreadful 
manner." In the 2d oration of Isaeus (§§io ff.), a certain 
Menecles is concerned over his childlessness, and adopts a son, 
" to care for him in his old age, to bury him when dead, and 
ever afterwards to perform in his honor the customary rites." 
(Cf. Ihid. §20; [Dem.] 43, §§12, 84; 44, 43.) The same feel- 
ing is found also in the works of the poets, wherein occur so 
frequently the prayers of the pious for children to care for 
them in their old age and to bury them when dead (Eur. Med. 
1032 ff. ; Suppl. 168 ff. ; Troad. 380 if. ; Ale. 663-665 ; cf. Lys. 

13, 45)- 
The universal prevalence of the custom of adoption, among 

" both Greeks and barbarians " (Isae. 2, 24), illustrates further, 
in a striking and practical manner, the solicitude of the Athe- 
nians as to the importance of maintaining the family line and 
the ancestor worship. (Cf, Id. 2, 20; 7, 14.) 

Again, the undercurrent of religious feeling is perceived 
when one notes, in detail, the duties of the heir. We read in 
Isaeus 7, 30 : " All men who are about to die take forethought 

for themselves, .... that there may be 
Religious Duties some one who shall offer sacrifices to them 
of the Heir. and perform all the customary rites." We 

learn from Isaeus 9, 30, that the son was 
associated with the father in the performance of religious cere- 
monies during life ; and it appears from many passages that it 
was the solemn duty and privilege of the heir to visit the family 
altars and offer sacrifices to the dead (Isae. 6, 51 ; 9, §§7, 13). 
I have already called attention to an interesting passage from 
the Memorabilia of Xenophon (2, 2, 13), wherein we learn that 
children were required by law to adorn the tombs of their de- 
ceased parents. We are informed that the most dreadful 
wrongs inflicted by a father could not release a son from the 



THE RELIGIOUS FEELING IN GREEK LIFE 



15 



sacred duty of performing the appropriate rites in honor of the 
dead (Aeschin. i, §§13, 14).* According to the law relating 
to the ill treatment of parents or grandparents — 6 nepl t?js /coKwo-ftos 
pofjLos — (Isae. 8, 32; Lys. 13, 91; Plato, Laws, 931 A D E), it 
was apparently deemed scarcely less important that the heir 
should perform the due rites in honor of the deceased, than 
that he should care for the parents and grandparents, during 
the lives of the latter (see Lys. 13, 91 ; 31, 21 ; Dem. 24, 107). 
That it was the peculiar privilege of the heir to perform these 
rites, appears also from the fact that the orators sometimes 
dwell upon the performance or non-performance of such cere- 
monies as arguments for the validity or non-validity of a 
contestant's claim to an inheritance. An illustration of this is 
found in Isaeus' 8th oration, wherein a certain Diodes, aided 
by a confederate, undertakes to usurp the privilege of the 
speaker, who is the grandson of the deceased, to honor the dead 
(§§38, 39), — a proceeding which the speaker characterizes as 
a " sacrilegious crime " — Upocrv\lav (§39). The speaker urges 
that his participation in the funeral ceremonies of the deceased 
shows clearly that he is the lawful heir (§§24 ff. ; cf. Or. 9, 
§§4, 32). Furthermore, he shows that during the lifetime of 
the deceased, he and his brother — the grandsons — were the sole 
assistants of the grandfather in all sacrifices and sacred rites 
(§§15 ff.) — facts most significant and conclusive. And, finally, 
the speaker shows that, after the grandfather's death, his right 
to bury the grandfather, with due ceremonies, was undisputed 
even by the wife of the deceased (§§21, 22), 

*The passage from the Alcestis of Euripides (662 ff.)> wherein 
Admetus declares that he will never render to his father the due burial 
honors, cannot be taken as indicating that the Athenians ever tolerated 
such an attitude on the part of a son. It is true that Euripides some- 
times transfers to the heroic age the customs and feeling of his own 
times (e. g. cf. Med. 230 ff.). But the sentiment expressed by Admetus 
in the passage referred to is thoroughly un-Greek (see vss. 683-684). 
The threat of Admetus is that of a contemptible despot, who is beside 
himself with rage, grief, and disappointment. Euripides is here sacri- 
ficing truth and propriety in order to call forth emotion — in order to 
awaken in his audience a feeling of horror over the awfulness of the 
fate awaiting Pheres — the fate of losing the customary funeral honors 
at the hands of his son. 



l6 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Thus the prominence of the reHgious feeling in the family 
relations and in the life of the individual is very apparent. We 
shall find, as we proceed with our investigations, that the in- 
heritance rights and the religious obligations were inseparably 
connected ; and it will become increasingly evident that the life 
of the Athenian citizen was not only closely associated with the 
religious system and the inheritance institutions, but was 
actually moulded and dominated by both. 



CHAPTER III. 

The Attitude of the State toward the Family and the 

Religious Cult. 

In the preceding chapter I have endeavored briefly to set 
forth the strong religious feeHng which dominated the life of 
the Athenian citizen and powerfully influenced the relations of 
the family. But apart from the point of view of the individual 
and the family, it is to be remembered that the perpetuity of 

the family/ the continued observance of 
Motives of the the domestic cult, and the maintenance of 
State in encour- the ancestral possessions, were matters of 
aging Religious great concern also for the State. Perrot 
Observances. (UEloquence Politique et Judiciaire a 

Athenes, p. 364) remarks : " It was a dis- 
astrous thing for the city that one of those altars upon which 
every year for centuries the hereditary sacrifices had been 
offered, should suddenly be seen to be neglected and absolutely 
abandoned. All those legendary heroes, those glorious an- 
cestors, watched constantly over their descendants, and in 
return for the homage which they received, protected still this 
Athens, for which they had formerly lived, fought, and suffered. 
With every family that became extinct, the city was losing a 
protector in allowing the domestic cult to perish with it. If it 
were often so, the gods of the lower world would finally be- 
come enraged against the city which they had so long favored." 
(Cf. Meier & Schomann, Der attische Process, p. 601). 

In this connection, it is interesting to note a passage from 
Isaeus (7, 30), in which the speaker, after alluding to the 
obligation to the dead, and after remarking that it was custom- 
ary for childless men to adopt a son, adds : " And not only do 
men take cognizance of this individually, but the State public- 
ally recognizes these obligations. For by law it enjoins upon 
the archon the supervision of the homes, in order that they may 
not be left destitute of heirs." The law referred to by Isaeus 



l8 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

is cited by the speaker in Pseudo-Demosthenes 43, 75 : 'o apxa>v 

e7rifi€\el<r6a> touv op(f)avS)v Ka\ tS>v fTriKKrjpcov koI t5>v oikcov tS>p e^eprjfiov- 
fjL€P(ov . . . TovTCiv eTTipeXfLcrBa) koi fjifj idroD v^pl^eiv fxrjdeva irepX tovtovs, 
(Cf. 'A^. UoX. 56, 7.) 

With the observation of the speaker in Isaeus may be com- 
pared a passage from the Antigone of Sophocles (vss. 748- 
749), in which the king reproaches his son 
Religious Feel- Haemon because the latter has taken the 
ing as seen in part of Antigone. Creon says with refer- 
the " Antigone." ence to Antigone, who has just been caught 

in the act of paying funeral rites to her 
brother, " All thy words .... plead for that girl." Haemon 
sternly replies in behalf of his betrothed, " And for thee, and for 
me, and for the gods below." 

Closely in accord also with Perrot's utterances, above cited> 
is the passage in the Antigone beginning with line 988 — I quote 
from Jebb's summary as contained in his introduction to the 
play (pp. xiv-xv) : " As the choral strains cease, the blind 
and aged prophet is led in by a boy. He comes with an urgent 
warning for the king. The gods are wroth with Thebes ; they 
will no longer give their prophet any sign by the voice of birds 
or through the omens of sacrifice (see vss. 1015 flf.). The 
king is himself the cause, by his edict forbidding the burial of 
the dead. Carrion creatures have defiled the altars of Thebes 
with the taint of the unburied dead. Let burial rites at once 
be paid to Polyneices." 

Professor Jebb remarks further : " The king's duty to the 
dead and to the gods below was now also a duty toward the 
polluted state, from which his impiety had alienated the gods 
above" (Introd. loc. cit.). Nothing, per- 
The State haps, could more strikingly illustrate the 

affected by Greek feeling for the dead than these pas- 

the Neglect of sages from the great tragedy. Especially 
Religious Rites, noteworthy and solemn is the passage begin- 
ning with line 1064, in which the aged seer 
addresses the obstinate Creon as follows : " Then know thou — 
aye, know it well — that thou shalt not live through many more 
courses of the sun's swift chariot, ere one begotten of thine own 
loins shall have been given by thee, a corpse for corpses; be- 



THE STATE AND THE FAMILY 



19 



cause thou hast thrust children of the sunlight to the shades, 
and ruthlessly lodged a living soul in the grave ; but keepest in 
this world one who belongs to the gods infernal, a corpse un- 
buried, unhonored, all unhallowed. In such thou hast no part, 
nor have the gods above, but this is a violence done to them by 
thee. Therefore, the avenging destroyers lie in wait for thee, 
the Furies of Hades and of the gods, that thou mayest be taken 
in these same ills." * 

It is to be observed that the immediate cause of the wrath 
of the gods above — the pure ovpdvioL Beoi — was not merely the 
pollution of the altars by the carrion creatures, but the offence 
committed against themselves by Creon in keeping a utaafxa — 
the unburied body of Polyneices — in their presence (see Jebb's 
note on line 1072). We thus find in this great tragedy, in 
which the conflict between divine law and human will is so 
powerfully set forth, a clear proof of the accuracy of Perrot's 
declaration that neglect of the burial rites and of the ancestral 
altars would enrage the gods of the lower world ; we also ob- 
serve that the king's refusal to permit a member of the family 
to honor the dead was not only bringing terrible afflictions 
upon the king's own house, but was actually calling down the 
wrath of the heavenly gods upon the State. It is, therefore, 
perfectly clear that the Athenians^ — theoretically, at least — re- 
garded their own prosperity and the security of their father- 
land as closely bound up with their ancestor worship and their 
religious cult; in other words, they felt that neglect to honor 
the dead and care for the ancestral altars was altogether likely 
to result in anger and estrangement on the part of the gods, and 
in disaster for the individual and the State. 

Apart from religious considerations, the State also had 
strong political motives for insuring the perpetuity of the 

family and the preservation of the ances- 
Political Motives tral possessions. We must bear in mind 
of the State that in ancient republics the number of 

for preventing citizens was not large, and that in par- 

the Alienation ticular the heads of rich and influential 

of Inheritances. families, who could perform important 

public services, were far from numerous. 

* The rendering is Jebb's. 



20 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

We must also remember that every rich and distinguished 
Athenian house deemed it a duty and an honor to discharge 
creditably the public obligations imposed upon it by fortune; 
and that sons would exert themselves to the utmost to equal 
or surpass their fathers in equipping and providing for the 
training of a tragic chorus, for example, or in performing the 
duties of trierarch. Now if the family became extinct, and 
the inheritance passed into the hands of some stranger, the 
latter, neither impelled by family pride nor influenced by 
hereditary associations, could usually find some pretext for 
contributing less liberally to the expenses of the government 
and the glory of the State. This is forcibly brought out in 
Isaeus' 6th oration (§§38, 60-61). Here the speaker, after 
having dwelt upon the distinguished public services of members 
of his house, promises to use his means for the glorification of 
the State, just as his family had done from time inimemorial; 
and he calls attention to the fact that, if the inheritance passes 
out of the family, the State can no longer expect to receive any 
such benefits ; that, in fact, much of the property has already 
disappeared, to the detriment of the State. So, too, in the 
7th speech of Isaeus (§§32, 39 ff.), the speaker cries out against 
his adversaries, who have brought to naught the house that 
had been conspicuous for its public services ; and he contrasts 
his adversaries' conduct with his own praiseworthy actions. 
In the 5th oration of Isaeus (see §§35, f¥., §§44 ff.), Dicae- 
ogenes' shameful neglect of his duties to the State is strikingly 
contrasted with the splendid achievements of the speakers' 
ancestors, and their liberal contributions to the State (cf. Id. 4, 
2y). In Isaeus' nth oration (§§47, 50), a certain Theopompus 
indignantly repels the thought that he has disposed of any of 
his property in order to escape public contributions. 

Thus the religious and political motives of the State for 
guarding the inheritance and perpetuating the family are 
clearly seen. And in view of the existence of such motives, it 
is not strange that Athens watched so tenderly and faithfully 
over the ancestral mansion and the family altar. The potency 
of the influence exerted upon the individual and the family by 
the religious feeling, combined with the feeling of obligation 
to the State, can hardly be overestimated. We shall observe 



THE STATE AND THE FAMILY 21 

that this rehgious and patriotic feeling permeated the entire in- 
heritance system; that it not only explains, in large measure, 
certain of the phenomena to which we have adverted, — as, for 
instance, the wide prevalence of the institution of adoption, — 
but that it enters into the marriage relations and becomes a 
determining motive there ; that it profoundly influences the 
relations between parents and children ; that it explains, in part, 
the dependent position of the Athenian woman; that, in a 
word, it overshadows and dominates the life of the individual 
and the family, and determines the relation of each to the 
State. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The Position of Athenian Women during the Period of 

THE Attic Orators. 

The social and legal status of Athenian women during the 
times of the orators constitutes a problem which demands a 
brief consideration at this point, inasmuch as family relations 
and social conditions in general are so largely determined by 
woman's position in the home and the community. 

At the outset we observe marked differences of opinion 
among scholars with regard to the social position of the women 
of Athens during the period mentioned. Many authorities 
maintain that the Athenian women during the Age of Pericles, 
and later, were regarded and treated as altogether inferior 
beings, incapable of asserting themselves or of exerting any 
influence for good in the home or the community, — relegated, 
in short, to a position very little removed from that of abject 
servitude. On the other hand, some writers have held that 
the women of the period referred to lived comparatively happy 
and independent lives. Whether we give adherence to either 
of these extreme views, or whether — as seems more reason- 
able — we assume an intermediate position, still we are com- 
pelled to admit that the Athenian women during 
The High the period of the orators held a place far in- 
Position of ferior to the dignified, honored, and even com- 
Homeric manding position occupied by the women of the 

Women. Homeric age.* It is, of course, beyond the 

province of this discussion to speak of social 

* Jebb says of the women of the Homeric age : " Women have a 
higher position and more freedom than in the later historical age of 
Greece. Polygamy is unknown, .... and there are few exceptions to 
the sanctity of marriage. The home life of King Alcinous and Queen 
Arete in the Odyssey is like a modern picture of fireside happiness, and 
no image of girlhood more noble or charming than Nausicaa can be 
found in poetry" {Greek Literature, pp. 28-29; cf. Becker, Charicles, 
pp. 462 ff. ; Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, pp. 52 ff., 146 ff.). We 
must bear in mind, however, that in Homer we are listening to a poet 
of aristocratic tastes, who is addressing himself exclusively to aristo- 
crats, and who either wholly ignores the common people, or treats 
them in a disdainful manner, purposely avoiding themes of common 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



23 



conditions prevailing in the earlier epoch, otherwise than to 
point a contrast between the two periods. But the contrast is 
exceedingly striking; and it is truly amazing that during the 
culminating period of their national greatness the Athenians 
should have assigned to woman a position characterized by 
Grote as one of " almost oriental recluseness " {History of 
Greece, Vol. 6, p. 100) — a position which seems to mark a dis- 
tinct retrogression from the standards and ideals of the earlier 
and more barbaric age. Nor is it easy to account for this re- 
markable change, since we possess no extended nor accurate 
account of the events which occurred during the intervening 
centuries ; the fragmentary writings of the lyric age which have 
come down to us afford only occasional glimpses of the social 
conditions prevailing during the interval. Possibly the example 
of Sparta, and the natural antipathy of the Athenians toward 
Spartan institutions, influenced the men of Athens somewhat 
in their attitude toward the other sex ; the boldness of the 
Spartan women may have repelled them, and prompted them 

to resort to extreme measures in dealing 
Reasons assigned with the women of their own state. 
for the Athenian Moreover, the operation of the inherit- 
Woman*s Unen- ance laws, and particularly the obliga- 
viable Position. tions of the head of the family to religion 

and to the State, may largely explain the 

life, and all such topics as would be distasteful to his princely hearers. 
This is particularly true of the highly idealized sketches of the court 
life of King Alcinous ; for the Phaeacians, It will be remembered, were 
on terms of intimacy with the gods. While Hesiod deals with harder 
and humbler phases of life, he does not enlighten us, to any extent, 
as to social conditions. Undoubtedly, life in the Homeric age had other 
aspects, of which we know practically nothing. Jebb, in speaking of 
the social position of Homeric women, remarks : " In comparing the 
Homeric place of women with her apparently lower place in historical 
Greece, two things should be borne in mind: (i) The only Homeric 
women of whom we hear much are the wives of chiefs or princes, who 
share the position of their husbands. The women of whom we hear 
most from the Attic writers belong to relatively poor households ; their 
social sphere is necessarily more confined, (2) The intellectual pro- 
gress made between 800 and 500 B. C. was for the men, and only in 
exceptional cases for the women. The Homeric woman of 950 B. C. 
was probably a better companion for her husband than the Attic 
woman of 450 B. C." {Introduction to Homer, p. 63, n. 2). 



24 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

peculiarly dependent position of the Athenian woman. For, 
since these obligations were paramount, and since the woman 
was disqualified to serve the family and the gods by performing 
the religious duties inherited by the heir, as well as incapable 
of discharging the arduous and expensive public services that 
devolved upon the head of an influential family, — therefore, her 
position in the community and in the family was necessarily a 
subordinate one.* 

Gardner comments upon the inferior condition of women in 
historical Greece, remarking that " women were of least ac- 
count in the greatest ages of Greece, in those days when the 
public life was most vigorous and Greece outwardly most flour- 
ishing." " And the reason, or at least one chief reason," 
Gardner observes, " is not far to seek, that in the archaic 
times of Greece and the times of decay, the men cultivated and 
found their pleasure in private and domestic life; in the great 
age of Greece the life of politics had driven quite into the 
background that of the home. The seclusion of women, like 
slavery, was part of the price paid by Greece, and especially 
by Athens, for a magnificent burst of public splendor " {Man- 
ual of Greek Antiquities, p. 340). 

Mahaffy suggests that the breaking down of the power and 
influence of the old aristocracy, and the increasing importance 
of the democracy, had the effect of changing the social posi- 
tion of women. He says : " I have shown before that, in 
Homer's day, the wives and daughters of the chiefs were re- 
spected and influential because they were attached to the center 
of power, because they influenced the king more than free men 
did, and because they belonged to an exclusive caste society 
which despised all beyond its pale. The same thing holds 
good, though perhaps in a lesser degree, in the aristocratic 

* Doubtless the Homeric woman would have been as effectually- 
barred from performing religious rites in behalf of the family as the 
Athenian woman was ; moreover, ancestor worship, in some form or 
other, undoubtedly existed in the Homeric age (see Campbell, Religion 
in Greek Literature, pp. 67-68; 130-131). But the State, in Homer's 
time, was, of course, practically non-existent; dkaiq, not vopin^, was 
dominant; and it is inconceivable that any elaborate inheritance system, 
with its attendant obligations, such as Isaeus knew, could have existed 
in Homer's day. 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 25 

days of historical Greece. . . . Accordingly, when the power 
passed from the special class of the nobles the consideration 
felt for all their entourage would also pass away. A common 
man, with an actual vote, would become of more importance 
than an Alcmaeonid lady, who might possibly of old have 
swayed her ruling husband" {Social Life in Greece, p. 146). 
Mahaffy also thinks that the influence of Ionia and the East 
upon Attica, at the time when Athenian commerce had devel- 
oped, and the relations of the various members of the Delian 
Confederacy had become closer, probably resulted in lower 
ideals concerning woman's position and influence (Ibid. pp. 

147 ff.)- 

However all this may be, it is undeniable that woman's posi- 
tion during the age of the orators was most unenviable. For it 

is evident that the Athenians did not 
Inferior Position of merely desire the women of their com- 
Athenian Women. monwealth to refrain from overstepping 

the bounds of feminine reserve and 
propriety, but also to defer in practically all matters to the 
wishes of their husbands, fathers, or guardians, and accept 
without questioning a position distinctly subordinate to the 
men, both intellectually and socially. We shall, accordingly, 
observe that the life of the Athenian woman was not only ex- 
ceedingly circumscribed and isolated, but that she was actually 
treated throughout her life as a minor, and under constant 
tutelage, being subject, at various times, to the authority of 
her father, brother, grandfather, husband, son, or guardian; 
that she had practically no authority, except in the sphere of 
domestic economy, very limited means for intellectual or social 
culture, and no opportunities to expend her energy otherwise 
than in occupations which were deemed purely feminine. We 
shall also observe that the majority of Greek writers speak of 
Athenian women in terms which are distinctly uncompli- 
mentary to her sex. 

Considering first the position of the Athenian girl in the 
home and in society, we observe at the outset that even an 

education worthy of the name was denied 
Meagre Education her. For nowhere in the works of Greek 
of Athenian Girls, authors do we read of educational insti- 
tutions for girls, or even of private teach- 



26 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

ers at home, — except, indeed, for some slight instruction, 
chiefly in matters of domestic economy, given by the mother 
and the nurse (see Becker, Charicles, p. 465). In a passage 
from the Phormio of Terence, it is true, mention is made of a 
certain slave girl — a musician — who attended a school (vss. 
85-86) ; but we also know that at Athens girls of the musician 
class were not usually considered to be above reproach (Aes- 
chin. I, §§42, 75). Nevertheless, a certain amount of education 
must have been received by many women ; for Plato speaks of 
educated women who attend the performance of tragedies at 
the theatre {Laws, 658 D), and the passage can hardly be 
explained away. We know, also, that a certain knowledge of 
music and dancing was imparted to many girls, and especially 
to girls of noble birth, to enable them to participate in great 
religious festivals ; this is illustrated by a passage from the 
Lysistrata of Aristophanes (641 ff.), wherein the representative 
of the chorus of women mentions several important religious 
celebrations in which she had taken conspicuous parts, while 
yet a mere child. 

With the exception, however, of such gatherings as these, — 
and an occasional funeral, perhaps ([Dem.] 43, 62), or a wed- 
ding festival (Plato, Laws, 775 A; Eur. I ph. in Aul. ^22; 
Lucian, Conv. 8), — it is evident that Athenian girls of good 
families lived a life of strict seclusion, and that their opportu- 
nities to become acquainted with those of the opposite sex 
were exceedingly rare. Very pathetic is a passage from Plato 
(Laws, 781 C), in which he speaks of women as a class " ac- 
customed to live in retirement and obscurity." In Xenophon's 
Oeconomicus, the young husband Ischomachus tells Socrates 
how he had married an exceedingly youthful wife, who had 

been carefully brought up " to see, and 
The Secluded Life to hear, and to inquire, as little as pos- 
of Athenian Girls, sible" (7, 5; cf. 3, 13). Very striking 

and pathetic also is the language used by 
Ischomachus of the process of training and of becoming ac- 
quainted with his shy young wife (Ibid. 7, §§9, 10) ; he speaks 
of her having become " accustomed to his hand," and " tamed," 
until she had reached the point at which she would readily con- 
verse with him. Here, it will be observed, the adjective x«pory(9;?y, 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 27 

and also the verb encTiOdaevTo (§10), would naturally be applied 
to the taming of some wild young animal. 

It would appear, indeed, that Athenian girls before marriage 
were not only rigidly required to remain for days and weeks 
at a time within their own apartments and in their own court, 
but that they were sometimes actually kept under lock and 
key; Callimachus, for example, speaks of them as KardKXeto-roi 
(Frag. 118) ; and, in the same strain, Phocylides says (vss. 
203-204) : 

UapdfviKrjv de (f)v\a(ra€ iroXvKKeiaTois 0a\afioi(Ti, 
fiTjde fxiv a)(pi ydficov irpo 86fi,a>p a}(f>Bi]vai idorrjs. 

(Cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 342-343.) Even the opportunities of 
Athenian girls to become acquainted with their relatives and 
with the masculine members of their own families seem to have 
been restricted ; for we must remember that the occupations of 
the Athenian men kept them away from home, for the most 
part (Xen. Oecon. 7, 30; Mem. i, i, 10; Stob. Tit. 74, 61 ; Eur. 
Med. 244-246) ; and even when they returned to the home, they 
seem to have remained chiefly in their own apartments (see 
Becker, Charicles, p. 465 ; cf. Lys. i, 22 ; 3, 6) . Herodotus sums 
up the general situation in the expression Kexf^piaBm ap8pas yvpaiKwv 
(5, 18), which seems to have been regarded as an established 
maxim (cf. Plato, Laws, 806 D E). Euripides is responsible 
for the assertion that silence and discretion are the fairest vir- 
tues of women, and that their duty is to remain quietly within 
the home {Heracl. /\.y6-4.yy', cf. Xen. Oecon. 7, 30). In Plato's 
Republic, the life of a tyrant, who is virtually a prisoner, is 
compared with the secluded life of a woman (579 B). And 
Thucydides represents Pericles as uttering the following sig- 
nificant words in his famous funeral oration : " To a woman 
not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great 
glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among 
men" (2, 45, 2, Jowetts' translation). These words of Per- 
icles, to be sure, are addressed to the widows of the fallen 
Athenian soldiers ; but it is obvious that they would be appli- 
cable to the unmarried girls of Athens as well. 

Such, then, in brief, was the position of the Athenian girl 
before marriage. And although, after marriage, a somewhat 
larger liberty of action was granted her, still we find that her 
life was exceedingly circumscribed in every way ; that she was 



28 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

directly under her husband's authority, seldom 
The Secluded permitted to leave the home, restricted to a 
Life of Athe- narrow circle of occupations, and forced to 
nian Women, find her chief companionship in the society of 

her children and her female slaves ; in a word, 
we find the Athenian married woman occupying a position dis- 
tinctly subordinate to that of the men, both intellectually and 
socially. Her occupations — briefly stated — now include the 
care of the home and of the children, devotion to her husband, 
and the supervision of the slaves. Plato sums up her duties 
in the words Bepan^iay TnfH€La, and Trai8oTpo(f)ia {Laws, 806 A ; cf . 
Aristoph. Lysist 17 ff.) ; Aristophanes gives us to understand 
that she has charge of the household money, and manages the 
expenses of the establishment (Eccles. 211, 212; Lysist. 493- 
495) ; and Xenophon names as necessary accomplishments on 
her part the making of clothing and the art of cookery (Oecon. 
7, 21 fif.). She is no longer restricted to the women's apart- 
ments, it is true, but she is not expected to pass beyond the 
street door, except under unusual circumstances ; thus, we read 
in a fragment from Menander (p. 87, Mein.) : 

irepas yap avXios 6vpa 
iXevBepa yvpaiKi vevopna-T oiKias. 

She is dependent upon her husband in practically all matters 
(Xen. Oecon.y, 14). Her imperative duties, as viewed by the 
Greek writers, are to remain constantly at home — to oUopeiv — 
in the performance of her household tasks, and to be discreet — 
TO <T(o(f)pov€tp. Thus, we read in Stobaeus (Tit 74, 61) a pas- 
sage taken from the treatise nepl ywaiKos aaxlipoavvrjs of Phmtys 
the Pythagorean, in which the speaker alludes to the political 
and military duties of the man, and adds : " But the particu- 
lar duties of a woman are to stay at home and remain within 
.... and to serve her husband." (Cf. Xen. Oecon. 7, §§14, 
22; Eur. Troad. 647 ff.) The peasant-husband of Electra in 
the well-known play of Euripides (vss. 341 ff.) is astonished 
to see his wife conversing at the gate with two strange men, 

and he remarks (vss. 343-344), ywaiKi rot alaxpov fxer avBpZv 

iardvai peavx&p. Aristophanes tells us distinctly that it is diffi- 
cult for women to leave the house — x^^^^n '"o* yvpaiK5>p e^obos 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



29 



(Lysist. 16) ; also that husbands are furious if their wives go 
from the home unknown to themselves (Thesm. 792 ff.). 
Were we inclined to question the accuracy of these observations, 
we read in Plutarch (Sol. 21) of a law of Solon relative to 
the restrictions attending upon the movements of women: 

^EneaTTjae Se /cot rals €^68ois t5>v yvpaiKwp koi to7s TrevO^cri Koi rals eoprdls 

vofj-ov aneipyopTa to aruKTop Kai aKoXaarop- M'?'"^ PvnTCDp 7rop€vea6ai 

TrXrjp afia^rj Kopi^oiJLeprjp, Xv^pov npo(f)aipoPTos» We also Icam that it 

was deemed essential for a respectable woman, when leaving 
the house on any necessary errand, to be accompanied by an 
attendant (Theophr. Char. 22; Lucian, I mag. 2). 

When we reflect upon the monotonous and isolated life of 
the Athenian woman, and the numerous restrictions which 
hedged her about, we can scarcely wonder that the tortoise was 
selected as the most appropriate symbol of her existence; for 
it was actually upon the representation of a tortoise that the 
famous Aphrodite Urania of Phidias was supported. Plutarch 

says '. Tc5 Se TTJs ^Adrjpas (eiKaa-fJiaTi) top dpaKovra ^fi8ias 7rape0qK€, tw 
de Tfjs A(l)podi.Tr)s ip HXiSi p^eXtovTji/, las tch p.kp napdepovs 0uXa/c^? Seopepa^y 
Ta7s 8e yapfToi^ olKovpiap koi (ria>7r^p TrpeTTOvcap yUe Isidc Ct OsiY. JO J 

cf. Pausan. 6, 25, 2). 

A picturesque passage, clearly giving evidence of the 
drudgery of the Athenian woman's life, and her utter lack of 
originality — to say nothing of a lamentable lack of character — 
is found in the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes (215 ff.). And 
the intolerant attitude of the Athenian men, and their resent- 
ment toward their wives when the latter seemed in the least 
inclined to step outside of their own appointed sphere, is 
cleverly brought out by Aristophanes in the Ly sis f rata (507 ff.). 
Both these passages, to be sure, are to be regarded largely in 
the light of burlesques ; and not only here, but in very many 
instances, it is evident that Aristophanes is deliberately exag- 
gerating and distorting for the sake of comic effect. We 
should not be justified, therefore, in taking such passages as 
these literally ; nor, when we read of certain extraordinary pre- 
cautions taken by the men to confine the women within their 
allotted apartments (Thesm. 414 ff.), should we be justified in 
concluding that husbands habitually kept their wives under 
lock and key, and even placed their seals on the door of the 



30 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

gynaeconitiSf for the sake of additional security. Neverthe- 
less, underneath all these humorous exaggerations and distor- 
tions there is evidently an element of truth; and even after 
making all due allowances for Aristophanic coarseness and 
uncontrollable humor, our impressions with regard to the gen- 
eral situation are distinctly painful. 

An interesting and vivid picture of a small Athenian house- 
hold is presented to us by Lysias (i, §§5-28), and illustrates 
in particular the position of a married woman of the lower 
class. The speaker briefly describes the household arrange- 
ments, explaining that his house consists of two stories, of 
which the upper story has been occupied by himself, and the 
lower by his wife and child (§§9, 10). He goes on to state 
that, at first, his wife was entirely satisfactory as a house- 
keeper ; that he " watched her as far as possible, and gave all 
reasonable attention to the subject" (§§6-8) ;* that at length, 
on the occasion of her mother's funeral, she for once left the 
house ; for once she was free from her husband's supervision, 
and on this occasion met the man who was responsible for her 
subsequent downfall. 

As illustrating still further the secluded life of the married 
woman, Isaeus tells us (3, 14) that " married women do- not 
go with their husbands to dinners, nor do they deem it proper 
to dine in company with the husbands of other women." The 
woman, in short, who went to a dinner with men was likely 
to be regarded as a iraipa. Thus, in Pseudo-Demosthenes (59, 

24) we read, avvemve Koi (TvvfSeijrvei ivavriov jroWaiV Ne'ntpa aurfjt las 

av iraipa ovaa. (Cf. Ibid, §§33, 48.) It is evident that married 
women did not even assist their husbands in entertaining 
friends at their own homes; thus, in Lysias i, 22, Euphiletus, 
unassisted by his wife, entertains Sostratus at dinner in the 
upper part of the house. In Lysias 3, 6, the speaker remarks 
that his sister and niece live a life of such strict propriety 
" that they are ashamed to be seen even by their relatives." 
We are also told that it was an infringement of etiquette for a 
man even to enter the house of a married friend or relative, 
when the master was away ([Dem.] 47, 60). 

It must be acknowledged that, in certain directions, the men 
*The rendering in Jebb's (Attic Orators, Vol. i, p. 272). 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



31 



of Athens were exceedingly particular in their behavior toward 
women, not merely in such a matter of etiquette as that to 
which reference has just been made, but also in the avoidance 
of the use of objectionable language, for example, in the pres- 
ence of women (Becker, Charicles, pp. 472-473; Dem. 21, 79; 
Ter. Heaut. 1041-1042). But all this was a very poor com- 
pensation for the actual selfishness, lack of appreciation, and — 
from our point of view — downright cruelty, which so fre- 
quently characterized the attitude of the men of Athens toward 
the women of their state. 

Cornelius Nepos draws an interesting comparison between 
Greek and Roman customs as regards the freedom of matrons. 
He says (Praef. 6, 7) : Quem enim Romanorum pudet 
uxorem ducere in convivium? Aut cuius non materfamilias 
primum locum tenet aedium atque in celebritate versatur? 
Quod multo fit aliter in Graecia. Nam neque in convivium 
adhibetur nisi propinquorum, neque sedet nisi in interiore 
parte aedium, quae gynaeconitis appellatur ; quo nemo accidit 
nisi propinqua cognatione coniunctus. (Cf. Cic. In Verr. 2, i, 
26, 66.) 

Lycurgus (In Leocr. §§39-40) gives us a vivid account of 
the behavior of the Athenian women after the news of the de- 
feat at Chaeroneia had reached Athens. We are informed that 
even the intense anxiety of the women for tidings of their 
loved ones could scarcely overcome their habitual reserve and 
habits of seclusion, and that they did not pass beyond the 
doors of their homes ; and the speaker actually characterizes 
their appearance in their doorways as a sight " unworthy of 
themselves and their city.'' 

Additional evidence of the restrictions imposed upon Athe- 
nian women is found in the existence of magistrates, known as 
yvvaiKovofioi, who wcrc expcctcd to maintain orderly behavior 
among the women (see Menand. Frag. 272, p. 78, Kock; Arist. 
Pol. 6 (4), 15, 13; 7 (6), 8, 23). There can be no doubt of 
the existence at Athens of such officials, although it is ques- 
tionable whether they were found there during Solon's time 
(see Poll. 8, 112). 

As illustrative of the woman's legal incapacity under the 
Athenian system, we may cite a passage from Isaeus (10, 10), 



32 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

to the effect that neither a woman nor an infant was allowed 

to conclude a bargain of importance: 

Legcll Incapacity of 6 yap vofxos 8iapprj8r]v KcoKevei naiBl fxf) e^eivai 
Athenian VV omen. av/x^dWdv fxr}8e ywaiKi nepa ixehip-vov KpiBatv 

(cf. Schol. Aristoph™ Eccles. 1024). 
Dion Chrysostomus (74, 9) also cites the law, and explains it 
on the ground of weakness of judgment on the part of the 
women and the infant — Sta to t^? yvoyfirjs auBevis. In a passage 
from Pseudo-Demosthenes (46, 14), the speaker cites a law 
providing that a man without sons can will his property as he 
chooses, " unless his mind is impaired by lunacy .... or 
disease, or unless he is under the influence of a woman." (Cf. 
[Dem.] 48, 56.) . 

We are not, however, to conclude that absolute dependence 
and strict seclusion was the invariable rule with Athenian 
women. Older women, for example, apparently enjoyed a 
larger liberty of action (see Stob. Tit. 74, 33) ; and younger 
women of the lower classes, having no slaves, were sometimes 
obliged to venture from the home in the performance of their 
duties, as in drawing water ( Aristoph. Lysist. 327 ; Pausan. 4, 
20, 3; 10, 18, 2). Market women, however, notwithstanding 
the necessities of their calling, were apparently placed in the 

same category as the hetaerae (see Becker, 
Strict Seclusion Charicles, p. 283). Women sometimes left 
not Universal. the house in order to attend funerals or 

weddings, as we have observed (Lys. i, 
§§5 ff. ; [Dem.] 43, 62 ; Plato, Laws, yy^ A ; Eur. Iph. in AuL 
y22) ; and we have the best of evidence that they were allowed 
to witness the performance of tragedies at the theatre * 
(Plato, Laws, 817 C; Gorg. 502 D; Aristoph. Frogs, 1049- 
105 1 ) , especially women of some education, to whom reference 
has been made (Plato, Laws, 658 D) ; and the presence of 
women and girls at religious festivals has been commented 

* On the other hand, the evidence at our disposal seems clearly to 
indicate that women in Aristophanes' time did not witness the pro- 
duction of comedies (see Aristoph. Peace, 50-53, 765-766; Eccles. 165- 
168, 1 140 ff. ; Clouds, 348-355; Acharn. 496; Birds, 30; Knights, 228; 
Thesm. 785 ff.). This is the view of Rogers, as set forth in his edition 
of the Ecclesiazusae (Introd. pp. xxix ff.). The situation is not in- 
disputably clear, however; thus, Haigh {The Attic Theatre, pp. z^Z ff-) 
argues that women must have been present at both tragedy and comedy. 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



33 



upon (see Aristoph. Eccles. 223 ; Lysist. 641 ff. ; Isae. 8, §§19- 
20; Plut. Sol. 21). It is also significant that the number of the 
religious festivals observed by the Athenians was very large ; 
further, that many of them were attended by women, and some 
by women exclusively* (see Kennedy, Demosthenes' Orations, 
Vol. Ill, App. VI, pp. 272 f¥.). 

In view of the foregoing facts, we may conclude that the 
opportunities of the women and girls of Athens for observing 
and being observed were more numerous than some critics are 
willing to admit. We may also be reasonably sure that in 
the presence of a great danger or emergency the Athenian 
women were capable of asserting themselves and coming to 
the relief of those who needed their comfort and aid — Lycurgus 
to the contrary notwithstanding. Andocides (i, 48) tells us 
that when he, his father, and his kinsmen were arrested and 
imprisoned, the mothers, sisters, or wives of certain of the 
prisoners came to them by night and ministered to their com- 

Becker {Charicles, pp. 403 ff., Excursus on Theatre-Going) presents 
the leading aspects of the controversy, and the conclusions of several 
eminent scholars ; and, basing his arguments chiefly on original authori- 
ties, he reaches the conclusion that women were present at tragedies, 
but that they did not attend comedies — at least not in early times. 
The question is obviously too large to be discussed in detail at this 
point. 

* The presence of Athenian maidens and matrons at certain of these 
festivals is, to a modern, simply astounding. A significant passage, 
illustrating the general character of certain of these celebrations, is 
found in the Acharnians of' Aristophanes, 241-279, wherein an account 
of the Rural Dionysia is given. The father has been instructing his 
daughter as to her part in the procession, and he says (vs. 261), 
kyu d' OLKoTiovduv aaofiat to ^aXkiKov. Rogers in his introduction to the 
Ecclesiazusae (pp. xxix-xxx), speaks of certain symbols and signs 
which, to a modern, would be unspeakably offensive, but which " en- 
countered the Athenian girl and matron everywhere, and even at the 
door of the house." He adds: "The pure and honorable maiden, who 
obtained the coveted distinction of bearing the Holy Basket in the pro- 
cession of the Dionysia, walked through the admiring crowds accom- 
panied by symbols and songs of, what we should consider, the most 
appalling immodesty. Yet to themselves the question of decency or 
indecency would not even occur. It Vv^as their traditional religion ; it 
was ' the very orthodoxy of the myriads who had lived and died ' in 
the city. And we know that ladies of all sorts and conditions attended 
the Roman Mimes, which had more than all the grossness, without the 
counterbalancing radiancy and patriotic elevation of Athenian comedy." 



34 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 



fort (cf. Lys. 13, 39). In cases of illness, also, there can be no 
doubt that the assistance of women was frequently invoked 
(cf. Becker, Charicles, p. 470; Gardner, Manual of Greek 
Antiquities, p. 349) . 

Again, there can be little doubt that the influence of women — 
and especially that of heiresses — was sometimes exceedingly 
potent in the home. Thus, we read in Aristotle {Nic. Eth. 8, 

12, p. IIOl), €vioT€ de apxov(Tiv ai yvvalKCS eiriKkrjpoL ovaai. And the 

well-known anecdote which Plutarch (Themist. 18) tells of 
Themistocles is interesting in this connection. The great 
statesman is said to have remarked, in a jocose manner, that his 
little son was the most powerful of the Greeks ; for the Athe- 
nians ruled the Greeks, he himself ruled the Athenians, the 
boy's mother ruled him, and the little fellow ruled his mother. 
It is obvious that Greek writers — historians, dramatic poets, 
orators, and others — are practically unanimous in assigning to 
Athenian women a position far inferior to that occupied by 
Homeric women, and distinctly subordinate to that of the men 
of their day. And if we briefly consider the opinions expressed 

by these authors with respect to woman's 
Greek Writers' character and nature, we shall observe that 
Unfavorable At- these opinions are distinctly uncomplimen- 
titude toward tary, and quite in accord with the ideals en- 
Women, tertained and the regulations enforced with 

respect to her proper position in the home 
and in society. And very significant in this connection are 
the observations of the philosophers of antiquity, who, although 
they have deliberately placed woman on a plane considerably 
below that of man, yet have shown a higher appreciation of her 
worth than many critics are willing to admit. Unlike Plato 
(Rep. 4^1 C), Aristotle protests against placing women and 
slaves on an equality (Pol. i, 2, 3; cf. i, 13, 7) ; but he also 
repeatedly insists upon woman's natural inferiority to man, as 
in Politics i, 5, 7, where he says, to cippcv npos t6 BrjXv ^uo-ei t6 ph 

KpciTTOv, TO Be x^^pov, Koi TO pcp apxoVy TO be apxopevov. In the SamC 
strain he says, ^eXnov t6 appev tov 6r{\eos 0yo-ei 

Attitude of the (Problem. 29, 11). Another significant pas- 
Philosophers, sage occurs in the Politics, 3, 4, 17 : "A 
man would be considered a coward, if he 
were only as brave as a brave woman ; and a woman would be 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



35 



thought extravagant, if she were only as frugal as an excel- 
lent man." In considering Aristotles' estimate of women, 
however, we must bear in mind that he speaks largely from 
the scientific point of view. 

Not only Aristotle, but also the benign Plato speaks in an 
uncomplimentary manner of the feminine nature, as compared 
with the masculine. Thus, in one passage he says, Xndpaiorepov 
fioXXov Koi €7riK\oTra)T€pop €(f)v TO 6ri\v {^Laws, y^i A) ; and he pro- 
ceeds to express the view that women should be the more re- 
strained, " in proportion as the feminine nature is inferior to 
the masculine as regards excellence" — dperlj.* In the Repub- 
lic, however, Plato places men and women on very nearly the 
same footing; he tells us, in substance (455 B ff.), that the 
same natural gifts are found in both men and women, although 
the men possess them in a higher degree than the women ; that 
both sexes are to be regulated by the same laws and are to have 
practically identical occupations ; and that there are different 
degrees of excellence in both men and women. 

But more significant, perhaps, than all else in the writings 
of Plato, as an index of his views concerning women, is his 
extraordinary advocacy of the abolition of marriage and the 
establishing of what would virtually have been a community 
of wives and children, for the governing members of society 
in his ideal commonwealth (Rep. 458 A ff.). The bare state- 
ment of his famous theory will suffice to show how widely the 
views of this great thinker diverged from modern ideals. It 
is to the everlasting credit of Aristotle that he combated so 
earnestly and so successfully this amazing doctrine of Plato's 
(Pol. 2, Chap. 3, 4). There can be no doubt that, in the posi- 
tion which Aristotle assigns to women, " he goes far beyond 
the Hellenic point of view " (see Susemihl & Hicks, The Poli- 
tics of Aristotle, p. 34) . 

In the discourses of Socrates, as presented by Xenophon, 
the old philosopher is represented as holding, on the whole, 

* Becker (Charicles, p. 464) seems to interpret the word apeT^ as here 
employed, in the sense of "virtue" or "chastity"; if, however, we 
understand the word in the sense in which it is sometimes used, as 
meaning " active excellence," — that is to say, " effectiveness," — it is 
evident that the passage has a different force. 



36 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

decidedly favorable opinions of women. Thus, in the Memora- 
bilia (2, 2), Socrates rebukes his son for unfilial feeling toward 
the mother, and pays high tribute to woman's self-sacrifice and 
devotion. In the Oeconomicus (7, 22 ff.), the speaker com- 
pares the woman's nature favorably with that of the man ; and 
in speaking of the attributes of the masculine and feminine 
nature, he says, in particular (§26), ovk av e^ois SieXeli^ norepa 

TO eduos TO 6rj\v rj to appcv tovtohv nXeoi/eKTel. In the SyfPlpOSlWM 

of Xenophon (2, 9), Socrates speaks of the capacity of women 
for dancing and for gymnastics, and remarks : "' In many 
other directions also .... it is evident that the nature of the 
woman happens to be in no way inferior to that of the man, 
but it (the former) lacks judgment and strength." 

When we approach the dramatic poets, and particularly the 
writers of comedy, we find that woman is the recipient of 
much vituperation and abuse. And here we must be on our 
guard ; for although comedy, as Horace tells lis, takes its 

subjects from common life {Epist. 2, i, 
Attitude of the 168-170), and to this extent is likely to be 
Dramatic Poets, true to reality, yet at the same time we 

must remember — and this can hardly be re- 
iterated too emphatically — that it is the comic poets' privilege 
and tendency to exaggerate and distort for the sake of comic 
efifect.* Hence, we cannot accept literally certain passages 

* Mahaffy, who very properly refuses to regard the Lysistrata, Thes- 
mophoriazusae, and Ecclesiazusae as actually reflecting Greek life, sug- 
gests as a possible explanation for the attacks on women contained in 
these plays, that they arose, "not from a low opinion of women in the 
poet, not from any desire of scourging a great rampant evil, .... 
but rather from the remnant of some old religious customs, where 
women met apart, .... and where also mimic choruses, during the 
feasts of such goddesses as Demeter and Cora, devoted themselves to 
licentious abuse of women, at times even exclusively." " There is not 
evidence enough to prove the custom at Athens," continues Mahaffy, 
" and to show the filiation of Aristophanes' comedies from these 
choruses My hypothesis rests on the fact that Aristophanes per- 
petually rails at Euripides for this very feature, that his other comedies 
are nearly free from it, and that the custom, which I presuppose at 
Athens, certainly did exist at Epidaurus, connected with the worship of 
Damia and Auxesia, which are probably local names for Demeter and 

Cora Possibly, therefore, these famous ribaldries about women 

are not meant to convey any bad impression of them by the poet" 
(Social Life in Greece, pp. 210-21 1). 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



37 



vituperative of women, contained, for example, in the Roman 
^comic poets, wherein the exaggeration is obvious {e. g. Plaut. 
Asin. 42 ; Mil. 685-686) ; at the same time such passages are 
not to be entirely ignored. Similar passages from Aristoph- 
anes and Menander, although doubtless exaggerations, yet 
show the tendency of the times and cannot be disregarded. 
We may point, for example, to a well-known passage from 
Menander (p. 190 Mein.), which indicates that the wife was 
usually regarded as a necessary evil in the household : 

avaynr) yap yvvaiK eivai KaKov, 
aXX (vTvx^s ecrd 6 fiCTfjioDTaTov \a^a>v. 

And we may add that a large number of similar passages from 
Menander, exceedingly derogatory to women, might be cited 
(e. g. cf. Frag. 648, p. 191, Kock; Frag. 652, p. 192; Frag. 
704, p. 201). So, too, in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes 

(vs. 42), the speaker exclaims, tI 8' av ywaiKa cfipopifxov epyaaaloTo ; 

Lysistrata herself remarks that the women are regarded by 
the men as TrofoOpyot ; whereupon her friend rejoins. Km yap eaptv 
vfj ^la (Ibid. 11-12). A still more striking passage, illustra- 
tive of the low estimate in which women were held, occurs in 
the Thesmophoriaziisae (786 ff.) : 

KaiToi nas tis to yvvaiKeiov (jivKov kuko. ttoXX oyopevd, 
u)S rrav icrpev KaKov avdpccnrois Ka^ fipa>p icrriv anavTa, 
€pi8eSf veiKT), (TTiiais dpyaXea, Xvnrj, noXepos. 

Of the tragic poets, Euripides has written a large number of 
lines highly unfavorable to women. Conspicuous among such 
passages are the bitter words of the unhappy Medea in the 
well-known play bearing her name (vss. 407-409), in which 
she speaks of women as '' altogether impotent for good, but 
exceedingly clever contrivers of all evil." Another repre- 
sentative passage in the same general strain is found in the 
Iphigenia at Aiilis (vs. 1394), wherein the heroine exclaims 
that " one man is better than ten thousand women." Becker 
(Charicles, p. 463) regards this passage as expressing the 
" deeply-rooted sentiment of Greek antiquity " respecting 
women. And this view of Becker's is all the more significant, 
in view of the fact that our distinguished authority is inclined 
to discount as rhetorical exaggerations many of the Euripidean 



38 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

passages vituperative of women {e. g. Hippol. 6i6 ff. ; see 
Charicles, loc. cit.). However, with respect to such passages 
as the two which I have quoted above, it is only fair to remem- 
ber that the utterance of a woman in an emergency, or in a 
moment of passion, cannot fairly be regarded as expressing the 
deliberate conviction of her sex. 

If it were safe to cite an isolated fragment as illustrative of 
the author's real attitude, we might point, for example, to 
Fragment 550 (from the Oedipus) : 

naaa yap dvdpos KUKioiv aXo)(os, 

KCLV 6 KaKiaTOS 

yrjuij TTjv fvSoKifiovaav, 

This is surely vindictive enough; but it would obviously be 
unfair to cite it as evidence of Euripides' real feelings, without 
knowing the context. Nevertheless, many such bitter passages 
are found in this author's works. But as an antidote to such 
passages as the foregoing, we may refer to Fragment 164 of 
the Antigone, wherein we read that " a sympathetic wife is 
man's best possession." 

Notwithstanding the existence of particular passages of 
Euripides vituperative of women, it will be found that types 
and situations are presented by the poet which convey to us a 
very different impression of his attitude toward women. For 
example, the beautiful picture of Alcestis, so strikingly drawn 
by the great dramatist, seems to carry with it the recognition 
on the part of the poet that Greek women sometimes occupied 
honored and commanding positions in the home and in society. 
And in this connection I desire to quote a few words from 
Mahaffy, who says, after remarking that Alcestis was not an 
exceptional type of heroine with Euripides: 
Mahaffy's " We have it, under varying circumstances, in 
Optimistic the splendid though little known Macaria of the 
Views. Heracleidae We have another modifica- 

tion of it in the better-known Polynexa, who is 
indeed doomed to die, but who meets her death with great 
nobility. We have the type of Polynexa carried out with in- 
finitely more grace and beauty in Iphigenia (in Aulis)" (Social 
Life in Greece, p. 202). The portrayal of such noble types by 
this most realistic of tragic poets, would certainly seem to 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



39 



indicate that Greek women were not generally held in such 
low esteem as some critics would lead us to suppose. 

Mahaffy says of Euripides in his attitude toward women : 
" While he is perpetually putting -into the mouths of his heroes 
the most virulent abuse of them, yet the majority of his 
heroines .... are the noblest and best of women. There 
are in fact very few contemptible and frivolous characters 
among them. . . . Even his much-abused Phaedra .... is 
a noble and pure nature, wrestling in vain with a passion di- 
rectly inflicted by the spiteful Aphrodite " * {Ihid. p. 200) . 
Mahaffy maintains that many of the Euripidean passages de- 
rogatory to women, occurring, for example, in the Hip poly tus, 
are " spoken in character, and by angry or disappointed 
people" {Ibid. p. 286), and that they are by no means to be 
regarded as representing Euripides' own attitude — contentions 
which the impartial reader will acknowledge to be reasonable. 

Of Aeschylus in his attitude toward women little need be 
said. As he deals so largely with great world problems, little 
room is left, in his extant tragedies, for the delineation of social 
life. Mahaffy speaks in an interesting manner of the pictures 
Aeschylus has left us of Clytaemnestra and Electra {Ibid. pp. 
150 fif.), and remarks : " The principal result attained for our 
social sketch from the works of Aeschylus is the high con- 
ception he forms of the ability and importance of women, and 
how large a part they play in human history." 

The impressions derived from a study of Sophocles, as to the 

* While it is true that the Phaedra of the play which has come down 
to us is an unfortunate rather than a deliberately guilty woman, yet 
it is evident that in the earlier play, which was apparently distasteful 
to his Athenian audience, Euripides represented Phaedra as utterly reck- 
less and shameless. The author of the Vita Euripidis refers to the 
earlier drama as one hv J t^v avataxwrlav e6f)idfj.f3eve tuv ywaiKtJv. Aris- 
tophanes' attacks upon Euripides for introducing objectionable charac- 
ters upon the stage, and for inculcating immoral ideas in general (see 
Frogs, 1043 if,), are not altogether fair; and yet we cannot read the 
criticism of Euripides which Aristophanes has placed in the mouth of 
Aeschylus, — and especially when we remember the constant tendency 
of Euripides to disparage women, — without feeling that the attitude of 
the great dramatist toward women was unfriendly and unfair, and that 
his influence upon home life and upon social standards in general cannot 
always have been uplifting. 



40 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

author's views of the character and influence of women, are 
distinctly pleasing. Without going into details on this point, — 
for the treatment of the topic must necessarily be brief, — I 
shall merely quote a remark by Jebb, which is pertinent to 
the subject {Attic Orators, Vol. i, Introd. p. xcix) : " No 
woman in Greek tragedy is either so human, or so true a 
woman, as the Antigone of Sophocles." It is hard to conceive 
of the author of so perfect a portraiture as that of Antigone, as 
entertaining anything but ennobling ideals of women. And it 
is quite as difficult to believe that such beautiful and noble 
creations as Antigone and Alcestis owed their existence solely 
to the imagination of the poets ; like true artists, the great 
dramatists must have found some strong and beautiful types 
among the Athenian women about them. 

If now we contemplate the lyric poets, we shall observe some 
admirable ideals concerning the character and position of 
Greek women. The reader's attention is particularly invited 
to the exquisite fragment of Simonides of Ceos, containing the 
lament of Danae ; and the impartial critic will readily admit 
that the expressions of maternal love here 
Attitude of the contained may be compared favorably with 
Lyric Poets. Homer's finest utterances. Mahaffy says 

{op. cit. p. io8) : ''In this, the most exqui- 
site of all the lyric fragments, the purest maternal love and the 
noblest resignation find their most perfect expression ; and we 
may safely assert that the poet and the age which produced 
such a poem, cannot have been wanting in the highest type of 
female dignity and excellence." Our authority also calls at- 
tention to certain passages by Simonides of Amorgus in the 
poem concerning women, as illustrating the spirit of the age. 
Although parts of the poem are offensive to a modern reader 
and are, for the most part, exceedingly derogatory to women, 
yet in the passage in which the excellent woman is so highly 
praised (vss. 83 ff.), there is presented to us a most pleasing 
picture. Mahaffy says : " I call the reader's attention par- 
ticularly to the fact that the public appearance in society of 
married women is so openly recognized throughout the poem. 
He will also see how heartfelt and earnest is the praise of the 
virtuous woman, in spite of all the poet's cynicism " {Ihid. 

p. 113). 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 4 1 

It must be acknowledged, I think, that the sketches of Greek 
women drawn by the tragic and lyric poets are, on the whole, 
pleasing to a modern reader. From the historians we natur- 
ally derive little information as to woman's 
Our General character and social status. Xenophon, as we 
Impressions of have seen, is sympathetic; and in the charm- 
the Situation, ing narratives of the genial Herodotus we do 
not find harsh strictures upon Greek women, 
althotigh their isolation, as we have noted, is clearly brought 
out. The grim Thucydides does not, of course, enlighten us 
in regard to Greek private life; his subject and method do not 
permit of such digressions ; but the aphorism — heretofore cited 
— which he has placed in the mouth of Pericles, as to woman's 
silent and secluded life, clearly indicates an unfriendly attitude 
toward the sex. 

With respect to the orators, it is sufficient, at this point, to 
observe that the impressions which we derive from them are 
gloomy in the extreme ; their attitude toward women, how- 
ever, can be discussed to better advantage in connection with 
marriage and the relations of the family. But we must bear 
in mind that the orators represent the formal and legal side of 
social life ; and due allowance must be made for their point of 
view. 

If we could convince ourselves that the ideals of the lyric 
age with respect to woman's character and position applied as 
well to the later period, and that the tragic poets, to whom we 
are indebted for so many charming pictures, have portrayed not 
only types and situations belonging to the heroic past, but also 
the ideals of their own time, — then we should be justified in 
concluding that these brighter pictures are to be relied upon 
as offsetting, to a considerable extent, the gloomy portraits 
presented by the orators, philosophers, and writers of comedy. 
But we must remember that in lyric poetry and in tragedy the 
ideal rather than the actual is likely to be emphasized; and 
although Euripides frequently transfers to the heroic age the 
feelings and customs of his own time, yet the setting and 
atmosphere of the Greek tragedies seem, to a large extent, to 
transport us to periods long antedating the Age of Pericles. 

I do not think that we are justified in adopting the extreme 



42 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

view of Becker {Charicles, p. 464), that "the only ap^rr) of 
which women were thought capable in that age differed but 
little from that of a faithful slave " — a view decidedly opposed 
to the optimistic ideas of Mahaffy. At the same time, — and 
notwithstanding the pleasing pictures drawn by Xenophon, 
and by the tragic and lyric poets, — we cannot avoid the con- 
clusion that the situation portrayed by the orators, philosophers, 
and historians represents approximately the truth regarding 
Athenian woman ; and that the sketches drawn by the writers 
of comedy, although exaggerated and distorted, yet approach 
the truth almost as closely, perhaps, as the highly idealized and 
artistic productions of the tragic and lyric poets. It is im- 
possible to believe that the Athenian women of the period of 
the orators occupied an honored and prominent position ; with 
the evidence at our disposal, we may affirm that they rarely, if 
ever, enjoyed the privileges and the influence possessed by the 
Homeric women. The attitude of the majority of the Greek 
writers toward women, although unfriendly and unchivalrous, 
evidently expresses the feeling for the sex that actually ex- 
isted at Athens, during the period of her greatest intellectual 
and material ascendency. 

As heretofore indicated, I have thought it desirable to em- 
phasize the secluded life and dependent position of the Athe- 
nian woman, because these conditions of Athenian life affected 
so directly the individual, the family, and society. Unless we 
clearly comprehend the attitude of the Athenians, individually 
and collectively, toward the women of their state, many of the 
social phenomena with which we have to deal appear incom- 
prehensible. And in particular we are led to the conclusion 
that the slight education and retired life of the Athenian 
women were largely responsible for the prominence of the 
hetaerae in Greek life,* and the association with them of even 

* Sir John Lubbock, the distinguished author of Origin of Civiliza- 
tion, has a novel explanation for the extraordinary prominence and influ- 
ence of the eraipai in Greece during historical times. He thinks — as 
other eminent authorities have also held — ^that communal marriages 
originally existed among pre-historic Greeks ; and he maintains that 
this condition was gradually superseded by individual marriages 
founded on capture (op. cit. pp. 98 ff., 103 ff.). Under these circum- 
stances, he thinks it natural that the kralpaL, in historical times, should 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 



43 



eminent men. For we must bear in mind 
Effect upon So- that during the age of the orators almost 
ciety of Woman's the only Athenian women of independ- 
Secluded Life. ence, education, and accomplishments be- 

longed to the peculiar class mentioned 
(see Becker, Charicles, pp. 247, 465). Grote says in this con- 
nection : " These women were numerous, and were doubtless 
of every variety of personal character, but the most distin- 
guished and superior among them, .... appear to have been 
the only women in Greece, except the Spartan, who either 
inspired strong passion or exercised mental ascendency " {His- 
tory of Greece, Vol. 6, p. 100). 

Again, the secluded life of the Athenian women of the better 
classes must have been largely responsible for the extraordi- 
nary prevalence, among the Athenians, of naidepaaTia — a phe- 
nomenon which seems to have been altogether unknown in the 
Homeric age. The extravagant devotion of Athenian men to 
handsome youths is no doubt partly to be explained by the 
admiration of the Greeks for all that was beautiful. But this 
explanation is, after all, inadequate ; it does not wholly account 
for the excessive admiration of Critobulus for his friend 
Cleinias, as described in Xenophon's Symposium (4, 10 ff.) ; 
still less does it account for the deplorable conditions set forth 
by Aeschines in his speech Against Timarchus. The ultimate 
explanation of the existence of conditions such as these is un- 
doubtedly to be found in the refusal of the men of Athens to 
permit their mothers, wives, and sisters to occupy their due 
position of influence in the home, and to grace the society for 
the adornment of which, under happier conditions, they would 
have been so admirably fitted. 

The prominence of the iralpai and the prevalence of 

have been held in higher esteem than women who were duly married to 
lawful husbands ; for the former " were originally fellow country- 
women and relations ; the latter captives and slaves." " And even when 
this ceased to be the case," Lubbock continues, "the idea would long 
survive the circumstances which gave rise to it" (Ibid. p. 127). This 
ingenious theory seems to leave out of account the high and honored 
position occupied by the women of Homer. But, as we have heretofore 
observed, it is probable that another side of life existed in Homeric 
times, of which the bards make no mention. 



44 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

n-aibepaa-Tia certainly had a marked and disastrous effect upon 
family life and social usages in general. For — leaving out 
of further consideration the subject of TraiSepao-n'a — it was in- 
evitable that the Athenian youth should be led astray and that 
the tone of society should greatly deteriorate (Isoc. 7, 48), 
when the men were so largely excluded from the society of 
women of their own class, and when the iraipai so far sur- 
passed in accomplishments and powers of fascination the free 
citizen women of Athens. The unwholesome condition of 
affairs which prevailed at Athens and elsewhere during this 
time not only encouraged profligacy on the part of the young 
men before marriage, but it stimulated restlessness and infi- 
delity after marriage. We have abundant evidence that the 
men of Athens were only too prone to disregard the mar- 
riage vow, and that their evil practices were usually regarded 
by the community with indifference, and were looked upon as 
inevitable (see [Dem.] 59, §§22, 23, 45 ff . ; 40, 8; Isae. 6, 
§§i8 ff.). It is evident, in short, that men of the type of 
Chremes in the Phormio of Terence and of Euctemon in the 
6th oration of Isaeus — to say nothing of the characters which 
appear in the Demosthenic speech Against Neaera and in the 
1st oration of Aeschines — were altog'ether too numerous in 
Athenian society. It is not, therefore, surprising that Plato 
deplored the low moral tone prevailing among the men of 
Athens (see Lazvs, 840 D ff.) ; and that even Solon before him, 
according to tradition, had despaired of enforcing continence 
on the part of Athenian citizens (Athen. 13, 569 D; Harpoc. 
s. V. ndv8r)fj.os 'AippodiTT]). And, indeed, if dependence could be 
placed upon passages from Aristophanes (Eccles. 225 ff., 720 
ff.), as really indicative of the views of Athenian women with 
respect to marriage, it would appear that even their ideals were 
seriously perverted. It is evident, moreover, that public opin- 
ion not only tolerated with complacency the most reprehensible 
performances on the part of Athenian citizens, but that the 
State officially sanctioned such practices (see Aeschin. i, 
119; Bockh, Public Economy of Athens, p. 333; Becker, 
Charicles, p. 243). And, astonishing though it may seem, we 
actually find the upright Socrates calling upon the iralpa 
Theodota, and holding a lengthy conversation with her (Xen. 



THE ATHENIAN WOMAN 45 

Mem. 3, 11). The indulgent attitude of the old philosopher 
toward this celebrated and dissolute woman is certainly a strik- 
ing commentary on the social conditions prevailing at Athens 
during the period of the orators. 



CHAPTER V. 
The Athenian Marriage. 

When we enter upon a consideration of Athenian marriage 
in its various aspects, we observe that the religious idea and 
the feeHng of obHgation to the State were everywhere domi- 
nant, not only as regards the formal relations existing between 
the various members of the family, and between the head of the 
family and the State, but also as regards the motives which 
actuated the Athenians in forming marriages, and the ideals 
which influenced them in all their marriage relations. We also 
observe marked restrictions in many directions, — especially as 
regards nationality, social position, and woman's sphere, — and 
in some respects we note surprising liberty of action — particu- 
larly with respect to marriage between relatives. 

Considering now the first-named of these restrictions, we 
observe that every Athenian was forbidden by law to marry a 
foreigner, under pain of the severest penalties * ( [Dem.] 59, 

* Lawful marriages between citizens and foreigners were, however, 
permitted under exceptional circumstances — when eTriya/iia had been 
conferred upon a foreigner, who had rendered distinguished services to 
Athens (Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, pp. 355, 515; cf. Plut. Sol. 
24; [Dem.] 59, 89). The testimony of our Greek authorities as to the 
general rule that only Athenian citizens could' lawfully wed, is direct and 
unequivocal. Apart from the passages cited above, attention may be 
drawn particularly to the oath regularly taken by the Athenian father, 
when presenting his son by birth or adoption to the members of his 
phratry, that the boy was born of a duly wedded wife who was a citizen 
of Athens (see Isae. 8, 19; 7, §§15, 16; 12, 9). The testimony of our 
ancient authorities is also accepted by nearly all modern scholars. And, 
irrespective of the evidence at our disposal, it is evident that a marriage 
between an Athenian and an alien was utterly at variance with the true 
Athenian spirit, and entirely irreconcilable with the motives and ideals 
which influenced the Athenians in all their marriage relations. More- 
over, we know that many persons of the v6do^ class were the sons of 
Athenians and aliens (Athen. 13, 577, 38; cf. Isae. 12, 7), and that 
severe disabilities were imposed upon such voOol., especially as regards 
inheritance rights (Aristoph. Birds, 1660 ff.). The extreme disfavor 



MARRIAGE 



A7 



§§i6, 17; cf. Plut. Pericl. 37). It is probable, however, that 
this restriction did not exist in early times (see Hdt. 6, 130) ; 
and the influx of foreigners into Athens at the 
Restrictions time of Pericles may have been the immediate 
in Marriage, cause which necessitated such a law. The 
Athenians, who had now reached the full con- 
sciousness of their greatness, evidently felt that a union be- 
tween a citizen and an alien would violate the principle of 
preserving the purity of the race, and would also tend to dimin- 
ish patriotic feeling and enthusiasm in religious observances. 
So strong, indeed, did the prejudice become against the inter- 
marriage of an Athenian and a foreigner, that even the Athe- 
nian citizen, we are told, who gave a woman of foreign blood 
in marriage to an Athenian, representing her to be a relative of 
his, was liable to disfranchisement and the loss of his property 
([Dem.] 59, 52). Furthermore, an Athenian who had mar- 
ried a woman of foreign blood, supposing her to be an Athe- 
nian, was apparently justified, in the eyes of the community, 
in dismissing her from his home, if he discovered that she was 
of foreign extraction {Ibid. §§62, 63). 

In marked contrast with this restriction as regards nation- 
ality, was the freedom possessed by the Athenian with respect 
to the marriage of relatives. The marriage of cousins was, 
apparently, exceedingly common (see Isae. i, 39 ; 3, 74; 8, 7; 
Andoc. I, §§117 ff.), and it is evident that the Athenian actually 

preferred to marry a relative rather than to go out- 
Marriage side the farnily; this is shown in an interesting 
between passage from Pseudo-Demosthenes (43, 74), in 
Relatives, which the speaker distinctly states that he gave 

his daughter in marriage to his nephew rather 
than to an outsider, in order to preserve the family lines. For 
it is obvious that when relatives had wedded,* and when the 

with which these vddot were regarded by the Athenians, clearly shows 
that the marriage of the parents of such persons could not have had the 
approval of the Attic law. (The status of the v66ol will be discussed 
in the following chapter.) 

* In consequence of the custom of marriage between relatives, it some- 
times happened that the relationships became peculiarly complicated. 
Thus, in an instance recorded by Lysias (32, §§4, 5) Diodotus' niece is 



48 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

retention of the inheritance in the family was thereby assured, 
family pride and hereditary associations would tend^ to promote 
fidelity in religious observances, and enthusiasm in the dis- 
charge of obligations to the State. 

Again, numerous instances are recorded by the orators of 
the marriage of uncle and niece (Isae. 3, 74; 8, 31 ; lo, 5 ; 
Lys. 32, 4). Stranger yet, from our point of view, and 
naturally less frequent, was the marriage of aunt and nephew. 
We read in Demosthenes {2y, 5), that the father of the orator, 
feeling that his end was approaching, betrothed his prospective 
widow to one of his nephews. The circumstance that the lat- 
ter neglected to marry his aunt after his uncle's death is imma- 
terial, so far as our argument is concerned ; for it is clear that, 
in this instance, all parties acquiesced in the proposed arrange- 
ment ; and there can be no doubt that such marriages were 
definitely recognized by the Athenians. 

The peculiar freedom possessed by the Athenian with respect 
to the marriage of kinsfolk is still further illustrated in the 
marriage of the heiress (eniKKrjpos) to her brother by adoption 
(Isae. 3, §§68, 69; Dem. 41, 3) — a topic which will be dis- 
cussed more fully in another connection. We may note in 
passing, however, that such marriages were frequent and were 
practically obligatory (see Meier & Schomann, Der attische 
Process, p. 503). 

Far more surprising, and even repellant, from our point of 
view, are the instances recorded in which a brother marries 
his half-sister. In Demosthenes 57, 20, the speaker remarks, 

d8e\(f)r]v yap 6 irdirnos ov/xos eyr^fxev ov^ ofxoixrjTpiav. This passage 

indicates the restriction imposed in marriages of this class, 
namely, that the brother and sister must not be children of the 
same mother (see Plut. Themist. 32, 3 ; Pausan. i, 7, i ; Achil. 
Tat. I, 3 ; Nep. Cim. i). In Menander's rewpyo?, the son of the 
family is expected to marry his half-sister (see Grenfell & 
Hunt ed., vss. 1-12). Becker {Ch(wicles, p. 478) thinks it 

his wife, and his brother is consequently his father-in-law; the latter 
is uncle and grandfather of Diodotus' sons, and is the brother-in-law 
of his own daughter. In Demosthenes 41, 3, Leocrates is the adopted 
son, the brother-in-law, and the son-in-law of Polyeuctus. 



MARRIAGE 



49 



probable that such marriages were universally condemned, 
except in .the earliest period (see Lys. 14, 41 ; Eur. And. 174- 

176).^ 

It is evident that relationship, with slight limitations, was 
not regarded by the Athenians as a bar to matrimony; that 
marriage, in short, could take place within all degrees of 

ayXifTTela OV avyyevcia, although not, of COUrsC, in the yevos 

itself, i. e. the direct line of descent or ascent (see Isae. 8, 
33). As Schomann expresses it, "There were no prohibited 
degrees of affinity in marriage, excepting for parents and 
descendants and full brothers or sisters by both sides " {An- 
tiquities of Greece, p. 356 ; cf. Meier & Schomann, Der attische 
Process, pp. 501-502) . The horror with which the marriage of 
Oedipus was universally regarded may be taken as a clear indi- 
cation of the feeling of the Greeks in this respect. The apparent 
disapproval with which even the marriage between the brother 
and the half-sister was sometimes viewed, — as indicated above 
— illustrates further the tendency of the Athenian to draw the 
line sharply at the yeVo?.* Plato {Laws, 924 E ff.) while 

* In connection with the subject of marriage between relatives, I 
desire to call attention to an extraordinary and erroneous view repeat- 
edly advanced by Morgan in his work entitled Ancient Society, to the 
effect that marriage' within the gens, or clan, was prohibited, except 
in the case of " heiresses and female orphans for whose care special 
provision was made" {op. cit. pp. 224 ff., 345 ff., 354 ff., et passim). 
We have seen that marriage was customary within almost all degrees 
of relationship ; and nowhere have I found a passage from a Greek 
author even suggesting that there was any prohibition as to marriage 
within the clan. Any such restriction as this would, so far as I can 
see, be not only artificial but meaningless, and would constantly inter- 
fere with the well-authorized practice of marrying a relative. The 
motives which actuated the Athenians in marrying their relatives — the 
preservation of the inheritance and the family lines, with the resulting 
benefits to the individual, the family, and the State — are perfectly clear, 
and are entirely independent of any such connections as those of the 
gens, or clan. Mr. Morgan has entirel}'- misunderstood a passage in 
Becker's Charicles (p. 477) to the effect that marriage could take place 
within almost all degrees of relationship, " though naturally not in the 
yevoq itself." Here the word yevoq is used by Becker in the primary 
sense of " line," " stock," in other words, the direct line of descent, as is 
proved not only by the context, but by the definition of yevog which 
Becker immediately gives in a passage from Isaeus, 8, 33: Kipowog 



50 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

enumerating the grades of relationship within which the daugh- 
ters might marry in case their father had died intestate, makes 
mention only of collaterals. Of course, the feeling which 
prompted the Athenians to avoid marriage within the di- 
rect line of descent — the yivos — was instinctive (see Wester- 
marck, The History of Human Marriage, p. 319). Plato 
speaks of this " unwritten law," and of the instinctive aversion 
to any such unnatural alliance {Laws, 838 A B), which pre- 
serves the purity of the home. 

With respect to the age at which marriage took place, there 
appears to have been no fixed rule among the Athenians ; and 
from the fact that uncle and niece so frequently married, — to 
say nothing of the occasional marriage of nephew and aunt — 
it is evident that disparity in age was not regarded as an 

TTorepov BvyaTTjp rj a6e?i(j>bg eyyvrepo) rov yevovg kari ; dfjTiov yap on dvyarrjp • rj 
fiev yap k^ ekeIvov yiyovsv, 6 ds [iet^ ekelvov. Ovyarpbg 6e iraldEc, fj adEX(j)6g ; 
TTolSeg S^ttovBev • ysvoc yap aXl' ovxt ffvyyiveia rovr' egtiv. Morgan has un- 
fortunately taken the word yEvog, as used above by Becker, to mean 
" gens," or " clan." Morgan also find's in the Supplices of Aeschylus 
proof of the soundness of his extraordinary view that the Athenian hus- 
band and wife must belong to different gentes, or "clans" {op. cit. 
PP- 354-355)- It will be remembered that, according to tradition, 
Danaiis, the brother of Aegyptus, had fled from Africa to Argos with 
his fifty daughters in order to escape the hostile violence of his nephews, 
and had been hospitably received by the king and people of Argos; 
that subsequently the fifty sons of Aegyptus came to Argos and urged 
Danaiis to lay aside past enmities and give them their cousins in mar- 
riage; that Danaiis, remembering the efforts of his nephews to deprive 
him of his Libyan kingdom, and distrustful of their assurances, con- 
sented, but instructed his daughters to assassinate their husbands on 
the night of their marriage (Apollod. 2, i, 4; Hygin. Fab. 168, 169, 
170; Aesch. Suppl., passim; Prom. 850 ff.). Now one of the explana- 
tions given by Morgan for the reluctance of the Danaides to wed their 
cousins rests upon the assumption that the maidens were of the same 
gens — " clan " — as the sons of Aegyptus, and hence forbidden to marry 
these cousins. But I have not discovered in the Supplices any evi- 
dence that the aversion of the Danaides to a marriage with their cousins 
was not due to fear and indignation arising from the wrongs which 
they themselves and their father had suffered, and were likely to 
suffer, from the sons of Aegyptus, Furthermore, as the Danaides 
were Libyan maidens, their views on marriage can scarcelv be regarded 
as illustrative of Athenian feeling. Morgan's contentions seem to be 
absolutely without foundation. 



MARRIAGE 



51 



obstacle to matrimony. And, apart from the mar- 
Age for riage of relatives, it is evident that there was often 
Marriage, a great discrepancy between the ages of husband 
and wife. Thus, we learn that Demosthenes' 
sister was five years of age at her father's death ; and that the 
father, having appointed a nephew as the girl's future husband 
and as one of the guardians of the estate, left instructions that 
his daughter should wed the nephew when she had reached 
the marriageable age — ten years, in this instance (Dem. 2y^ 5 ; 
29, 43). Again, in the 2d oration of Isaeus (§§4, ff.) we read 
that a certain Menecles, already advanced in years, asks the 
hand of the speaker's younger sister, who has just reached the 
marriageable age ; and that, notwithstanding the discrepancy 
in years, the girl is given to him in marriage by her brothers. 

It is evident, then, that girls were sometimes married at an 
exceedingly youthful age — at fifteen, fourteen, and occasion- 
ally at even an earlier age, as in the case of Demosthenes' 
sister, just mentioned (cf. Xen. Oecon. 3, 13 ; 7, 5 ; Aristoph. 
Lysist. 595). Such extreme youthfulness, however, was evi- 
dently exceptional (see Becker, Charicles, p. 479 ; Xen. loc. 
cit.) ; although it seems to have been the usual rule that the 
bride should be considerably younger than her husband (Stob. 
Tit, 71, 3 ; cf. Plato, Rep. 460 E ; Laws, 785 B ; Arist. Pol. 4 
(7), 16, 9). And it is evident that the Athenian girl who did 
not wed at a comparatively early age was thought to be un- 
likely to marry at all (Aristoph. Lysist. 596-597). 

As to the most suitable age for the marriage of men, there 
^- was apparently no fixed rule. The husband was sometimes ex- 
ceedingly youthful ([Dem.] 40, 4) ; and, on the other hand, it 
is evident from the instances already cited that age on the 
man's part was not regarded as a barrier to marriage (Isae. 
2, 4; Menand. rfojpyd?, 68 ff.). Plato suggests thirty to thirty- 
five as a suitable age for men to marry {Rep. 460 E ; Lwivs 785 
B) ; and Aristotle thirty-seven or less {Pol. 4 (7), 16, 9) ; and 
the same authorities, in the above passages, suggest sixteen to 
twenty as the most suitable age for the marriage of girls. 

Inequality of social position was deemed a serious obstacle 
to marriage. That the principle of marrying according to 
one's station received wide recognition is evident, especially 



52 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

when one observes the many passages occurring in the comic 
poets, where rich men seek to wed the sisters 
Social Position or daughters of their poorer neighbors. 
in Marriage. Thus, in the Aulularia of Plautus, where the 

rich Megadorus asks for the hand of the 
daughter of the poor Euclio, the latter remarks (vs. 235) : 
" Hoc magnumst periclum, ab asinis ad boves transcendere." 
Again, in Plautus' Trinummus (688 if.), Lesbonicus is dis- 
turbed at the thought of his undowered sister being wedded 
by the rich Lysiteles ; in short, the whole plot of the play re- 
volves about the thought of the impropriety of so unequal an 
alliance, and the reluctance of the poor to enter upon it. 

Interesting also, in this connection, is the lament of Strep- 
siades in the opening scene of Aristophanes' Clouds (vss. 41 
ff.), that he had wedded a fashionable and aristocratic woman, 
whose social position was far above his own. The same gen- 
eral thought is expressed in a passage from Euripides (Frag. 
504), wherein the speaker remarks that those who marry 
women of wealth or of superior social position " know not how 
to marry ; for the wealth of the wife, dominating in the home, 
makes a slave of the husband." So, too, in a choral passage 
from the Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus (vss. 887 flf.), the 
chorus expatiates upon the desirability of marrying within 
one's station. 

When we consider the subject of marriage even from the man's 
standpoint, we are immediately impressed by the restrictions 
and the constraint exercised upon the individual in the selec- 
tion of a life partner. For it frequently 
Marriage from the happened that an Athenian was not per- 
Man's Standpoint. mitted to choose his wife ; under certain 

circumstances, his partner for life was 
thrust upon him, irrespective of his own feelings in the matter. 
When a father died without sons, leaving a daughter — the 
iniKhr^pos — neither married nor betrothed, it became the duty of 
the next of kin to marry the girl, or to give her in marriage 
with a dowry.* In Isaeus i, 39, the speaker says of his 

* In case the nearest male relatives belonged to the class known as 
OTireg — serfs, or hired laborers — they seem to have been exempt from 
these responsibilities (see Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus — Commentary, 



MARRIAGE 53 

uncle Cleonymus and the latter's daughters : d . , . K\€a>vv[xog 

eVeXeuTJ^ce Bvyarepai anopovfievas KaTaXtTra)!/, jy/txety au 8ia ttjv ayxi<miav 
. . . r}vay<a^6fieda . , . ras KXecopvfiov Bvyarepas ?) Xa/3et»' avToi yvvalKas ») 
irpoiKa firihihovres erepois €K8i86vai, Kol ravO rjixas Koi fj crvyyeveia koI 01 
pofioi Koi rj Trap vpa>p al(T)(yvr) noieiv rjvdyKa^ev aV, rj rais pcyicrrais ^rjpiais 

KOI rotff ia-xarois oveldea-i TrepiTreaelv. In the Phormio of Terence the 
whole plot rests upon the obligation of the next of kin to marry 
the daughter. Thus, in lines 125-126, we read : " There is a 
law that orphan girls shall marry the nearest of kin, and this 

same law commands the male relatives to 
Marriage of the wed the girls." (Cf. vss. 295 ff., 409 ff.) 
Heiress with the In the ist oration of Andocides (§§117 
Nearest of Kin. &.) the orator tells us how he claimed one 

of his uncle's daughters in marriage, after 
the girl's father had died without • male issue. Andocides 
comments upon the small amount of property left by his 
uncle, and upon the heavy liabilities of the estate; still (§119), 
since the father, if he had lived, would naturally have be- 
trothed one of his daughters to the speaker, as next of kin; 
and since- — as the speaker frankly admits — ^he would have been 
very ready to claim the girl, had a rich inheritance accompa- 
nied her, — therefore he now feels it to be his duty to marry her. 
Many passages, illustrating the duty of the next of kin to 
wed the heiress, might be cited (e. g. cf. Isae. 3, ^^^2, flf . ; 10, 
§§4 fif. ; 8, 31) ; * and it is clear that the woman who was not 
promptly claimed by the next of kin was thought to be suffer- 
ing a positive injustice (Isae. 10, 5). It would seem, in short, 
that no principle of Athenian inheritance law was more firmly 
established than the obligation of the next of kin to wed the 



p. 221). If on the other hand, the woman belonged to this class, and 
was consequently undesirable as a bride, from the Athenian point of 
view, the nearest of kin was under obligation to give her in marriage, 
with a dowry commensurate with his means, according to a scale fixed 
by law. If there were several kinsmen standing in the same degree of 
relationship, they appear to have been severally responsible; and the 
archon was required to enforce the law ([Dem.] 43, 54; Harpoc. s. v. 
dTJTeg; Phot. s. V. 6?)aaai). 

* Nothing definite can be stated regarding claims to the hand of an 
heiress who had not yet reached a marriageable age (see Wyse, Com- 
mentary, pp. 321, 322, 501). 



54 ' THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

heiress; for this arrangement appeared to the Athenians to 
be best calculated to insure the perpetuity of the family, the 
preservation of the inheritance, and the maintenance of the 
domestic cult — an arrangement, in short, most likely to benefit 
the individual, the family, and the State. 

On the other hand, the Athenians seem to have realized that 
a marriage with an heiress of superior wealth was not desir- 
able from every point of view; thus, Mahaffy calls attention 
to an interesting passage on this subject from Menander, which 
he renders as follows : " Whosoever desires to marry an 
heiress, is either suffering under the wrath of the gods, or 
wishes to be called lucky, while he is really miserable (Social 
Life in Greece, p. 287). 

Not only as regards marriage with the next of kin, but in 
general, it will be observed that an Athenian was likely to be 
greatly restricted in choosing a wife. It seems to have been 
an almost universal custom that the Athenian father should 
select a wife for his son. Thus, in Isaeus 2, 
The Father 18, the speaker says of his adoptive father: 

chooses his iaKoim 6 MerefcX^y yvvalKo. fxoi, koI ((prj fie xpW^*- 
Son's Wife. yrjfxai' Koi iyto Xafx^dvo) ttjv tov ^iKovidov Ovyarepa. 

In an instance recorded by Pseudo-Demosthe- 
nes (40, §§4, 12) the speaker's father requires the young man 
to marry at the age of eighteen. In Menander's Teapyos 
(vss. I ff.), we observe that the father arbitrarily selects a 
wife for his son, when the latter is temporarily absent from 
home. Many instances of the exercise of parental authority 
in choosing a wife for a son could be cited from the Roman 
comic poets. As illustrating the father's disposition in this 
regard, we may refer to a passage from the Phormio of 
Terence (vss. 231 ff.), in which Demipho says of his son's 
unauthorized marriage: 

Itan tandem uxorem duxit Antipho iniussu meo? 

nee imperium meum, ac mitto imperium, non simultatem 

meam 
reuereri saltem ! non pudere ! o facinus audax ! 

(Cf. Plaut. Trin. 1183 ff. ; Ter. And. 236 ff.) 

It is evident, however, that a man of mature years, unham- 
pered by obligations of kinship, could often choose his wife. 



MARRIAGE 55 

Thus, according to a passage from Isaeus (2, 4, ff.), a certain 
Menecles, already advanced in years, asks for the hand of the 
speaker's younger sister, and receives the girl in marriage from 
her brothers. 

Considering now the question of marriage from the woman's 
standpoint, we observe that she had far less independence in 
the choice of a life partner than the man. From the times of 
Homer downward the right of the father to give his daugh- 
ter in marriage seems to have been unques- 
The Father tioned * {Od. 2, vss. 53, 54, 113, 114; 15, vss. 
gives the 16, 17; [Dem.] 46, 18; Isae. 9, 29). Accord- 

Daughter in ing to a passage from the 8th oration of Isaeus 
Marriage. (§8), we observe that when the first husband 

died the father chose a second husband for 
his daughter. An instance is recorded by Demosthenes (41, 
4) which illustrates still more strikingly the parental authority 
in this regard ; here we observe that the father, after having 
given his daughter in marriage, quarrels with his son-in-law, 
takes away the latter's wife, and gives her to another. 

If a father whose daughter had neither been betrothed nor 
married felt that his end was approaching, he often selected 
the girl's future husband for her, as in the case of Demosthe- 
nes' father, to whom reference has already been made (Dem. 
2y, 5; 28, §§15, 16). If, however, the father was not living, 
and had neither betrothed the girl nor named a husband for 
her in his will, the brothers, either individually or collectively, 
gave the sister in marriage (Lys. 13, 45; Isae. 3, §§3, 4; 2, 
§§4 ff.) ; [Dem.] 40, §§7, 19; Dem. 44, §§9, 17). Pseudo- 
Demosthenes (46, 18) cites the law which provides that the 
father, or the brother (aSeXc^o? otxonaTcop) shall betroth the girl, 
and that otherwise the responsibility for the betrothal shall 

* A passage from the Alcestis of Euripides (vs. 317) in which the 
dying heroine says to her daughter, ov yap oe ju^rrjp ovre w/ioeixyet ttot^ , 
can scarcely be regarded as affording evidence that a Greek mother 
ever betrothed or gave a daughter in marriage, even though we assume 
that Euripides is here reflecting the feelings of his own time. The 
passage rather would indicate a mother's eager interest in her daugh- 
ter's future welfare ; and it would also indicate that the influence of a 
Greek wife in connection with her children's interests was sometimes 
greater than is generally acknowledged. 



56 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

devolve upon the paternal grandfather ; further, that 
Brothers in case none of these are living, the woman's guard- 
betroth ian — her Kvpios — is responsible for her betrothal and 
Sisters. marriage * (cf. Hermann, Political Antiquities of 

Greece [Ed. 1836, E. T.], pp. 232-233 ; Plato, Laws, 
774 E.). Naturally, the woman's Kvpios was often her nearest 
male relative (Plato, loc. cit.), as, for example, an uncle (Isae. 
5, 26) or a cousin (Id. i, 39), or possibly a kinsman who was 
himself disinclined to wed the heiress, and was accordingly 
obliged to give her in marriage, with a dowryf (Ibid. loc. cit.). 
Sometimes the responsibility for the betrothal apparently de- 
volved upon the step-father (see Hermann, loc. cit.). Isaeus 
records an instance in which a certain Apollodorus, about to 
depart from Athens, makes a will leaving his property to his 
half-sister, and naming her future husband (Or. 7, 9). 

Instances are recorded in which the husband, feeling that 
his end is approaching, betroths his wife to another. Thus, in 

Demosthenes 2y, 5, the father of the 
A Dying Husband orator, realizing that his death is near, 
Betroths his Wife, betroths his wife to one of his nephews 

(cf. Id. 28, §§15-16). A somewhat 
similar instance, in which an Athenian selects the future hus- 
band for his prospective widow and appoints him by will, 
occurs in Demosthenes 36, 8 (cf. 45, 28). 

The eyyvrja-is — the formal affiancing or betrothal of a woman 
by her guardian to the man whom she is to marry- — is to be 

* The law, according to the passage cited, reads as follows : "Rv av 
kyyvrja-g enl SiKaioig ddfiapra slvai r] Trarfjp rj adeXcpbg djiondrcdp rj izcnzTzoq 6 npbg 
Tvarpog, ek Tavrrjg elvai Traldag yvrjoiovc. kav 8e firjdelg y tovtuv, kdv fiev eTrLKhjpog 
Tcr r/, TOP Kvpiov sx^'-'^i ^^'^ ^^ f^V V, orw av eTCirpiip'^, tovtov Kvpcov elvat. 
The meaning of the first sentence is of course perfectly clear; with 
regard to the ambiguous language in which the second part of the 
statute is expressed, and the controversy to which the document has 
given rise, see Wyse's remarks (Commentary, pp. 285 ff.). 

t It would seem that a woman's Kvpiog was sometimes her husband. 
Thus, in the 3d oration of Isaeus, a woman named Phile is represented 
in court by her husband; and according to Demosthenes (27, §§55, 56; 
29, §§47, 48), the faithless guardian Aphobus would have become Kvpiog 
of the orator's mother, had he married her in accordance with the 
wishes of Demosthenes' father. The question is somewhat complicated, 
however; see Wyse's discussion of the point at issue (Commentary, pp. 
284 ff.). 



MARRIAGE 57 

distinguished from the process of law — the eViStKao-ia — in ac- 
cordance with which the nearest of kin claims the eViKXr/poy 
in marriage. The iyyvrjais is not, of course, to be understood 

as equivalent to a modern betrothal, in which 
The Betrothal, a man and a woman, upon agreement of 

marriage, plight their troth to one another, 
independently of others. The eyyvrjais, or formal marriage con- 
tract, did not necessarily involve the consent of the woman or 
even her presence ; nothing in our records indicates that either 
was requisite; the contracting parties immediately concerned 
were the woman's guardian and her intended husband, and the 
woman herself was practically an object of barter between the 
contracting parties. The ceremony— except in the case of the 
emK\T)pos — was Considered an indispensable prerequisite for a 
valid and honorable marriage; without it, the marriage would 
practically be regarded as a concubinage, and the children 
would be p66oi (see Meier & Schomann, Der attische Process, 
p. 507; Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, p. 356). The law 
relating to the betrothal is quoted by Pseudo-Demosthenes, 46, 
18 (see p. 56, foot note, where the document is cited in con- 
nection with another topic; cf. [Dem.] 44, 49; Hyp. 5, 16). 

In the case of the heiress, the fViSt/caa-ia — wherein the court 
determined which particular relative should become the Kipios 
of the woman, and thereby gain the right to wed her and re- 
ceive with her the estate — in this case the emdiKaa-ia apparently 
took the place of the iyyvrjo-is as an indispensable adjunct to 
the marriage * (see Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities, 
p. 189; Wyse, Commentary, pp. 289, 501). 

*Hruza, in the first volume of his work entitled Beitrdge zur Ge- 
schichte des griechischen und romischen Familienrechtes (see espe- 
cially pp. 5 ff., 18 ff.)> denies that the kyyvrjatq was a betrothal or affianc- 
ing, and that the legitimacy of Athenian children could have depended 
merely upon a ceremony preparatory to the married state ; he even ques- 
tions wether betrothals, as such, existed in Attica. He thinks that 
eyyvTjai^ is comparable with the consensus nuptalicius of the Roman law; 
that it was the first and probably the most important ceremony of the 
wedding day, constituting the beginning of marriage, and usually coming 
immediately before the wedding festivities proper. He thinks that in the 
case of the ETziKlijpog, the kiridcKaaia, taking the place of the kyyvijaiCf 
immediately converted the girl into a lawful wife, notwithstanding any 



58 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

It cannot be denied that the Athenian marriage was far from 
being an ideal institution. When, by reason of the secluded 
life of the Athenian girl, there was little or no previous ac- 
quaintance on the part of bride and groom ; when a free choice 
was rarely permitted, and when arrangements were frequently 
made by third parties — sometimes, apparently, by professional 
match-makers (Aristoph. Clouds, 41, 42; Xen. Mem. 2, 6, 
36) ; when the marriage ideals — as we shall subsequently ob- 
serve — were often ignoble ; when the men 
Gloomy Aspects of Athens were surrounded by such allur- 
of the Athe- ing forms of vice, and prohibited by social 

nian Marriage. conditions from seeking companionship in 
the society of virtuous and cultivated 
women of their own class ; when, even after marriage, there 
was evidently very little genuine companionship between hus- 
band and wife, partly because the woman's early training 



extreme youthfulness on her part. Hruza's views are scarcely tenable. 
As an illustration of the difficulties of his position, we may cite the case 
of Demosthenes' father, who is described as betrothing — kyyvciv — his five- 
year-old daughter to one Demophon, with the stipulation that the latter 
should wed the girl when she had reached the marriageable age (Dem. 
28, 15). Obviously this could mean "betrothing" and nothing else, but 
Hruza offers the far-fetched interpretation that the girl was already by 
this act made a wife, defining her position as matrimonium legitimum 
sed non consummatum, according to the principles of the canon law, 
and finding analogies in certain Roman marriage usages under the 
Empire. Wyse has an admirable discussion of this topic, and con- 
cludes by remarking : " The reply to Hruza's legal refinements is that 
the presumptions of a Roman jurist are out of place in a discussion of 
Athenian law. That the validity of a betrothal should determine the 
legitimacy of the issue of a marriage ceases to seem amazing as soon 
as we free ourselves from modern conceptions of the nature of mar- 
riage, and especially from the principle of the Digest 'consensus facit 
nuptias.' The origin of the Greek eyyvriGig lies in marriage by purchase. 
.... The Athenian legislator did not act irrationally in taking as the 
mark of a lawful marriage the validity of the contract between the 
parties rather than the formalities which attended delivery of the object 
of the contract. ... As at Athens, so in the ancient law of Germany 
and Scandinavia the betrothal is a contract between the suitor on the 
one side, and the father, brother, or guardian of the maiden on the 
other, perfectly distinct from the wedding, but nevertheless an indis- 
pensable condition of a valid marriage" (op. cit. pp. 292-293). 



MARRIAGE 



59 



had not fitted her to be a man's companion, and partly be- 
cause the husband's chief occupations, interests, and amuse- 
ments lay outside the home ; and, finally, when infidelity to the 
marriage vow * was not infrequent, — there can be little doubt 

* An instance of the most flagrant and deliberate disregard of family- 
obligations is found in the 6th oration of Isaeus (§§i8 ff.), wherein is 
briefly set forth the pathetic story of an aged man named Euctemon, 
to whose unfortunate history reference has already been made. 
Euctemon, after a long, honorable, and successful career, leaves a happy 
home and a devoted wife and family, and takes up his abode with an 
unprincipled freedwoman of his, named Alke, whose husband had 
deserted her. Euctemon, after having conferred many favors upon 
the woman, finally, at her instigation, proposes to enroll one of her sons 
in his phratry, under his own name; but his own son, Philoctemon, 
quite naturally objects to such a gross infringement of his rights. To 
overcome the objection of his son, the infatuated Euctemon threatens 
to marry still another woman, — in fact, actually betroths himself to 
her (§22) — and proposes to give preference to the children that may 
be born of this new marriage, and thereby deprive Philoctemon of a 
part of his inheritance. Philoctemon, unspeakably humiliated by his 
father's behavior, acquiesces, in order to avoid further scandal. Eucte- 
mon then breaks his engagement with the third woman mentioned 
(§24), and enrolls the son of Alke in his own phratry, as he had 
before attempted to do — a highly discreditable proceeding for all con- 
cerned. Ultimately, after having impaired his health, humiliated his 
family, and hopelessly disgraced and impoverished himself, the un- 
fortunate old man dies at a great age, under peculiarly sad circum- 
stances. There is nothing in Isaeus' narrative to prove that, during 
the time of his infatuation with Alke, Euctemon had formally and per- 
manently divorced his wife, although he had unquestionably separated 
from her for the time being (see Der attische Process, p. 502) ; and, 
in fact, that portion of Isaeus' narrative (§§39-41) which describes the 
attempts of the heart-broken woman and her daughters to take charge 
of the deceased, and pay the last rites, strongly indicates that Eucte- 
mon's true and original wife was still his lawful spouse. Nevertheless, 
a number of scholars insist that a formal divorce must have taken 
place, as Jebb (Attic Orators, 11, p. 344), Schomann (Commentary on 
Isaeus, pp. 315, 334), Miiller (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 
attischen Burger- una Eherechts, Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 1899, Supplement- 
band 25, pp. 698 ff.), Zimmermann (De Nothorum Athenis Condicione, 
p. 17), and Wyse (Commentary, p. 495) ; and the latter very properly 
raises the question whether, in view of Euctemon's having " betrothed 
himself to the sister of Democrates in order to spite Philoctemon " 
(§§22-24), it is conceivable that the woman's Kvpiot; would have 
deliberately betrothed her to a man already married. Gilbert (Greek 



6o THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

that, under such circumstances, unhappy marriages were the 
rule rather than the exception with the Athenians. It is, per- 
haps, difficult for us to realize that the element of romance and 
the higher spiritual and intellectual companionship which we 
moderns naturally associate with marriage, were practically 
unknown to the Athenians ; and yet we have abundant evidence 
that such was actually the case. The average Athenian mar- 
riage seems to have rested upon a physical basis, and upon 
nothing more (see Plato, Symp. i8i B if.). Even in the 
somewhat idealized picture of a happy marriage presented to us 
by Xenophon in his Oeconomicus, no intellectual sympathy 
whatever between husband and wife is apparent; the wife's 
paramount duty, as impressed upon her by her mother, is " to 
be modest " — aoicfypovciv (see Chap. 7, §14) ; and the question of 
affection between husband and wife is clearly one of minor 
importance. 

Medea, in the well-known play of Euripides which bears her 
name, speaks feelingly of the unenviable position of the Greek 
married woman; and remembering Euripides' tendency to 
transfer to the heroic age the feelings and situations of his 
own time, we may regard the passage referred to as describ- 
ing, in a fairly accurate manner, the position of the average 
Athenian wife in the age of the orators. Medea says (vss. 230 
ff.) : " Of all beings that have life and intelligence, we women 
are the most wretched. For, in the first place, we are com- 
pelled to purchase husbands with large sums of money and 

Constitutional Antiquities, App. p. 455) thinks that while Euctemon 
was still married to Philoctemon's mother, Alke was Euctemon's 
concubine; and Buermann (Drei Studien auf dem Gebiet des attischen 
Rechts, Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementband 9, 1877/8, pp. 571 ff.), 
also denying that any divorce had taken place, finds in the passages 
referred to, proof of the existence at Athens of legitimate concubinage. 
Hruza {op. cit. 1, p. 28; 11, pp. 31, 44., 48 ff.), maintaining, as Gilbert 
does, that in the case of the sister of Dem-ocrates Euctemon was de- 
liberately contemplating bigamy, presents the astonishing view that 
in this speech of Isaeus we have evidence of the existence at Athens 
of polygamy, which although not sustained by public opinion, was not 
actually illegal! Whatever the true explanation of the situation, it is 
evident that Euctemon pursued his outrageous course openly, and that 
there is no redress for his unfortunate family. 



MARRIAGE 6l 

to accept them as our masters. . . . And herein is the direst 
peril, namely, to receive a husband either as an evil or as a 
blessing; for divorce is not honorable for women, nor is it 
possible to repudiate a husband. And when the wife comes 
into the midst of manners and customs strange to her, she 
has need of the gift of divination, — unless she has been taught 
at home, — in order to know how best to treat her consort. 
And if, in case we have worked out these problems well, our 
husbands dwell with us, and do not bear the yoke with vio- 
lence, enviable is our life ; otherwise, we must needs die. For 
when a man is displeased with his environment in the home, he 
goes out and puts an end to the vexation which he feels in his 
heart by betaking himself to some friend or associate ; but we 
must look to our husbands alone." And these words find an 
echo in the language which Xenophon, in the Oeconomicus, has 
placed in the mouth of the young wife of Ischomachus, when 

she says to her husband : Ws Sc 17 e/M^ dvvajiis ; aXX' h a-ol navra earlv 

(Chap. 7, §14). 

As a natural consequence of the unhappiness which too often 
characterized the Athenian marriage, we find that separation 
and divorce — rare, apparently, in the Homeric age — had be- 
come frightfully common in the times of the ora- 
Frequency tors. And the warning of Plato, who saw the 
of Divorce, dangers inherent in the Athenian social system, 
and urged that young men and women be more 
frequently permitted to meet one another, in order that less 
indifference and enmity might arise in the married life, fell, 
apparently, upon deaf ears (see Laws, 771 E ff.). 

A striking illustration of the lightness with which the mar- 
riage bond was dissolved is found in a passage from Demosthe- 
nes (41, §§3 ff.), wherein we observe that a father, having 
adopted his wife's brother, gives to him his youngest daugh- 
ter in marriage; and that ultimately the father quarrels with 
his son-in-law, takes the latter's wife away from him, and 
gives her to another. In the Demosthenic oration Against 
Neaera, a husband casts away the wife with whom he has 
lived for nearly a year, because he finds himself mistaken in 
regard to her parentage, and realizes that she is not a free 
citizen woman of Athens (§§82 ff.). According to Pseudo- 



62 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Andocides (§14), an injured wife takes the initiative in ac- 
complishing the separation ; here Alcibiades is represented as 
introducing disreputable women into his home, and scandal- 
izing his wife, who thereupon appears before the archon and 
files her statement, looking to a divorce. Even the conduct of 
the great Pericles was not above reproach ; for we read in 
Plutarch (Pericl..24), that when the distinguished statesman 
perceived the development of uncongeniality between himself 
and his wife, he proceeded to give her to another, in accord- 
ance with her wishes, and then took unto himself Aspasia. 
And this extraordinary method of terminating a marriage 
seems, unfortunately, to have been resorted to not infrequently 
by the Athenians. I have elsewhere referred to the narrative 
found in Isaeus' 2d oration (§§4 ff.), wherein we read of an 
aged man who has married a youthful wife, 
Husbands give and who eventually concludes that, by reason 
their Wives of his years and his childlessness, a separa- 

te Others. tion is desirable. The husband now virtu- 

ally gives his wife to another ; for he recom- 
mits her to the charge of her brothers, and with the full 
approval, apparently, of her former husband, she is given in 
marriage to a second husband. 

An exceedingly frank passage occurs in Demosthenes (36, 
§§28, 29), which shows, even more clearly, that the practice 
of giving a wife to another was by no means an unusual one. 
The speaker says : " Socrates the banker, . . . having gained 
his freedom from his master, . . . gave his wife to Satyrus, 
who previously had belonged to him. Socles, another banker, 
gave his wife to Timodorus, who is still living. . . . And it is 
not only here, men of Athens, that people engaged in this line of 
occupation take such action ; but in Aegina Strymodorus gave 
his wife to Hermaeus, his own slave, and again, upon her death, 
he gave him his daughter. And many such persons one might 
mention." And the speaker proceeds to justify such action 
on the ground of expediency and financial necessity — certainly 
a melancholy commentary on Athenian standards of marriage. 

Apart from this extraordinary custom of voluntarily giving 
one's wife to another, we find that occasionally the inheritance 
laws intervened to terminate a marriage ; that too often 
there was no security even in an apparently happy marriage, 



MARRIAGE 63 

and that circumstances might arise under which the wife could 

be torn from her husband, and compelled 
Inheritance Laws to enter new marriage relations (see 
sometimes ter- (Der attische Process, p. 616). Isaeus 

minate Marriages, says (3, 64) : " And with reference to 

women who have been given in marriage 
by their fathers .... if the father dies without leaving them 
legitimate brothers, the law ordains that they may be claimed 
in marriage by the next of kin, and many husbands have 
already been deprived of their wives" (in this manner).* 
And again, in Isaeus 10, 19, the next of kin, who unlawfully 
possesses the inheritance, and are about to be sued by the hus- 
band of the lawful heiress, threaten to take the man's wife 
from him and claim her for one of themselves, unless the matter 
is dropped. The threat prevails, and the husband, to save his 
wife, is forced to relinquish the entire property to the scoun- 
drels (cf. Dem. 43, 15). 

Instances are also recorded in which a husband, wishing to 
wed an heiress related to him, leaves his wife and forms a 
new marriage. Thus, in the 57th speech of Demosthenes 
(§41), we read: " Protomachus was poor, but becoming en- 
titled to marry a wealthy heiress, and desiring to give my 
mother away, he persuades my father Theuritus, who was an 
acquaintance of his, to take her ; and my mother was given in 
marriage to my father by her brother." (Cf. Dem. 30, 
Hypoth. §1.) 

Such a violent termination of the marriage relations may be 
regarded as one of the direct results of the Athenian inherit- 
ance system, carried out to its logical conclusion. The prop- 
erty must be kept within the family, or else the State would 
suffer ; the ancestor worship must be continued by the heir, 
otherwise the gods would become estranged, and would pro- 
ceed to afflict not only the family, but the State. The rights 
and sacred affections of the members of the family are of 
minor importance ; the individual and the family live chiefly 
to perpetuate the religious observances and serve the State. 

* Of course an Athenian woman, whether married or single, was not 
an emK?.Tjpog even after the death of her father, brother, and paternal 
grandfather, provided a dead brother had left descendants (see Wyse, 
Commentary, p. 286). 



64 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Sir William Jones speaks of the right of the next of kin to 
wed the heiress, even though she were already married * — a 
right " so firmly established that even the act of her own father 
could not supersede it." Our distinguished authority char- 
acterizes the legal regulations which insisted so strenuously 
that estates should forever remain in the family of the de- 
ceased as " the most iniquitous and intolerable of all the 
Athenian laws, an odious remnant of the ancient institution, 
which Solon in part abolished" {Works, Vol. iv, p. 210). 

In connection with the subject of Athenian marriage, we 
observe in one direction a great injustice on the part of 
society — and an injustice, by the way, not confined to the 
Athenian state; for while the married woman must conform 
rigidly to the requirements of convention- 
Double Moral ality, the husband may overstep the bounds 
Standard of of propriety almost at will, and may utterly 

the Athenians, ignore the obligations of honor and virtue, 
unrestrained by law or the conventions of 
society. The following passage from Plautus' Mercator seems 
clearly to reflect the feeling existing at Athens (vss. 817-823) : 

Ecastor lege dura uiuont mulieres 
Multoque iniquiore miserae quam uiri. 
Nam si uir scortum duxit clam uxorem suam, 
Id si resciuit uxor, inpunest uiro: 
Vxor uiru(m) si clam domo egressast foras, 
Viro fit causa, exigitur matrumonio. 
Vtinam lex esset eadem quae uxorist uiro. 

* Wyse thinks it a debatable question whether a woman who had 
become the mother of a legitimate son did not thereby cease to be sub- 
ject to the perils and responsibilities of the heiress {op. cit. pp. 334, 351, 
352). The only passages from Isaeus which bear upon this question 
(3, 64; 8, 31; ID, 19), convey to us the distinct impression that mar- 
riage and the birth of children did not release a woman from the cruel 
necessity of leaving her husband and forming a new marriage with the 
next of kin, unless, of course, she and her husband relinquished all 
claims to the inheritance (as in 10, 19). A different impression is 
derived from the 6th oration, wherein we observe that Euctemon had 
left two daughters, one a widow with a daughter, the other a married 
woman with two sons. Nothing is said of any claim upon the hand of 
the married daughter, but the widow is claimed by a kinsman as 
emK^pog and eTridiKoc (§§46, 51, 57, 58). It is unfortunate that no 
direct statement on this point by Solon has come down to us. 



MARRIAGE 65 

The passage cited illustrates not only the double moral stand- 
ard which prevailed at Athens, but also the startling ease and 
informality with which separation or divorce was accomplished. 
Pollux, it is true, remarks, " Just as marriage is contracted by 
law, so also it is annulled " (3, 7) ; but all the evidence at our 
disposal leads us to conclude that the law was at all times 
exceedingly indulgent towards separation and divorce. Becker 
{Charicles, p. 497) thinks that no formalities 
Divorce easily whatever attended the separation; that the 
accomplished. husband simply sent away the wife (o7ro7re/x\/^eff) 
or that the wife left her husband (aTrdXei^i?). 
The authors of Der attische Process (p. 513) are of the opin- 
ion that separation or divorce could be accomplished without 
legal process, if both parties were agreed in the matter, and if 
there was no controversy respecting the dowry. We have 
evidence, however, that when the wife sought a divorce it 
was necessary for her to give a written notice to the archon, 
as in the case of Alcibiades' wife, mentioned above (cf. Isae. 
3, 78; Dem. 30, §§17, 26; Phot. s. v. <nVov dUrf). Plutarch in- 
forms us that the wife was required to appear before the magis- 
trate in person, in order to deposit t6 rijs diroXelyj/ecos ypa^ifxa 

(Ale. 8). Thus, we observe that the divorce proceedings on 
the part of the wife were accompanied by troublesome formal- 
ities, while the dnoTrffxyfris on the part of the husband was at- 
tended by no legal ceremony ; the husband simply sent back 
his wife to her Kvpios with the dowry (see Der attische Pro- 
cess, p. 511). Furthermore, we have evidence that divorce 
and sepai;ation were regarded as disgraceful to women ; thus, 
Medea is represented by Euripides as saying, ov yap ivKkcus 

UTraWayai yvvai^iv (Mcd. 236-237; cf. Stob. Tit. 73, l). 

We are informed that the woman who had proved unfaith- 
ful to her marriage vow was driven from her husband's home, 
and debarred from places of public worship ([Dem.] 59, §§86, 
85). The marriage, under these circumstances, was of course 
annulled (see Becker, Charicles, p. 497; [Dem.] 59, 87) ; and, 
indeed, the husband who persisted in living with a wife whose 
infidelity to the marriage vow had been proved, incurred 
drifxla (Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, p. 518). Lysias in 
his 1st oration records an instance in which an Athenian hus- 



66 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

band discovers that his faithless wife has been secretly harbor- 
ing a lover ; whereupon he summons witnesses and slays his 
wife's paramour (§§26, 2y) ; and we learn that, under such 
circumstances, the slayer could not be adjudged guilty of 
murder (Id. 13, 66; i, 30; Plut. Sol. 23). 

In connection with the subject of marriage, the status of the 
Athenian widow requires a brief consideration; and it is evi- 
dent that she was often subject to great hardships. In Isaeus 
6, 51, a gloomy spectacle is presented to us; we observe that 
the widow of a certain Chaereas will be at the absolute disposal 
of the false claimants, if they win the lawsuit; 
Status of otherwise, if proved to be the rightful heiress, 
the Widow, she is to be given again in marriage according 
to law * {Ihid. §4). The melancholy picture pre- 
sented to us by Demosthenes, of the dying husband who be- 
troths his prospective widow to his nephew, may again be cited 
here (Dem. 2y, 5; cf. 36, 8). In Isaeus 8, 8, the speaker's 
mother is given in marriage by her father ; and after her hus- 
band's death, the father gives her in marriage again. In 
Lysias 32, 6, Diodotus arranges for the dowry with which his 
wife is to marry again, in case of his death ; and after the 
death of Diodotus, Diogeiton, the brother of the deceased, 
gives the widow in a second marriage {Ihid. §8). In De- 
mosthenes' 40th oration (§§6, 7), the brothers of the widow 
give her in marriage a second time, with a dowry (cf. Isae. 9, 
2y). A striking and dramatic picture of the hardships en- 
countered by a young Athenian widow is drawn by Becker 
{Charicles, pp. 164 ff.), to which the reader is referred. 

It is evident that the widow was usually expected to marry 
a second time (Dem. 29, 26), either in accordance with the 
testamentary arrangements of her husband, or in conformity 
with the wishes of her guardian ; that her own wishes in the 
matter were not likely to be regarded, and that constraint was 
often exercised upon her (see Becker, Charicles, p. 478). 

If an Athenian died, leaving no children, his widow regu- 
larly returned to her own family (Isae. 8, 8; Der attische 
Process, pp. 519 ff.). If there were children by the marriage, 

* Apparently, however, Isaeus is here attempting to mislead the 
judges by confusing the case of Androcles with that of Chaerestratus 
(see Wyse, Commentary, p. 539). 



MARRIAGE 67 

the widow was permitted to remain in the house of her hus- 
band ; in this case she came under the authority of her chil- 
dren's guardian, while their minority lasted ([Dem.] 42, 27; 
46, 20) . If she expected to be delivered of a child, and so de- 
clared herself, she might also remain; in which case the 
archon was expected to guard her interests ( [Dem.] 43, 75 ; 
'a^. noX. 56, 7). And even when there were children, the 
widow was privileged to return to the house of her Kvpio^ 
([Dem.] 40,6). 

The subject of the dowry forms a somewhat important topic 
in connection with Athenian marriage. The custom of giving 
a dower was an exceedingly ancient one, and certainly ante- 
dated the time of Solon (see Charicles, p. 480) ; thus, we 

have a number of instances in Homer in 
The Dowry. which the suitor presents wedding gifts to the 

bride or to her parents, after the fashion of the 
times {e. g. II. 16, 178; 22, 472; Od. 16, 390-391; 21, 160- 
161).* The Homeric practice « of bestowing gifts upon the 
bride's parents — forming a striking contrast with the later 
custom in which the father or guardian of the bride bestows 
the dowry — is significant as revealing the original character of 
the dowry, which was unquestionably the purchase money paid 
by the suitor for his bride. For we cannot lose sight of the 
thought that the woman in primitive times was regarded as 
property, and that property considerations carried the utmost 
weight in connection with primitive marriage (see Keller, 
Homeric Society, pp. 200, 214; Lubbock, Origin of Civiliza- 
tion, p. 126). That the primitive dowry was simply a purchase 
sum, by means of which the man bought a wife from the 
woman's father, is recognized by Aristotle, who 
The Dowry alludes to the practice of buying a bride and 
originally calls the custom "barbaric" {Pol. 2, 8, 19). 
Purchase Medea, it is true, complains that her sex had 
Money. to purchase husbands with large sums of money 

(Eur. Med. 230 ff.) ; but here Euripides is 

* The hdva referred to in Od. i, 277, and 2, 196, which at first glance 
would seem to constitute an exception to the Homeric custom of pre- 
senting gifts to the bride's parents, are probably to be explained as 
wedding presents made by the bride to those of her own household 
(see Liddell & Scott, s. v. edvov). 



68 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

clearly transferring to the heroic age the practice of his own 
time. Even the dowry of historical times, the irpot^ or ^epi/^, 
which was regularly settled upon the bride by her father 
or guardian when she was affianced, may, perhaps, be regarded 
as originally the purchase sum by which the father bought a 
husband for his daughter ; or, such a portioning of the bride 
may have implied originally a return of the price paid under 
the earlier system (see Westermarck, History of Human Mar- 
riage, ^, 40s). 

It is hardly to be supposed, however, that the practical 
Athenians of the age of Pericles would have clung to the 
dowry merely because it symbolized an ancient and honored 
custom. The dowry of historical times had several distinct 
and practical uses. It was often intended as a settlement for 
the wife in case of the termination of the marriage, whether by 
the husband's death or by divorce (see Westermarck, op. cit, 
p. 411). We have already noted that the Athenian woman, 
during the times of the orators, was in a condition of constant 
tutelage, with practically no independent property rights; as 

we shall subsequently observe, she had no 
Objects and claim whatever even upon her husband's 

Advantages of property; evidently, then, the dowry was 
the Dowry. likely to prove of the utmost importance for 

her welfare and comfort, as her only means 
of support in case she was left destitute. The dowry did not, 
it is true, become absolutely and invariably the woman's prop- 
erty; in case of divorce, or of the death of her husband, the 
dowry would be placed in the hands of the woman's guardian, 
who was required to support her from it, or with it to give 
her in marriage again (Isae. 2, 9; Dem. 2y, §§15, 17; 29, §§33, 
26; Meier & Schomann, Der attische Process, pp. 525 ff.). 
If, again, she had children, and chose to remain in the house of 
her husband, the dowry became her children's property 
([Deni.] 42, 27; 46, 20). But, as against the woman's guar- 
dian, her husband, or his creditors, the dowry was absolutely 
her own * (see [Dem.] 59, 52 ; Dem. 27, 17 : [Dem.] 40, 6) ; the 

* The -wife's dowry was forfeited, however, in case the woman, by- 
reason of immoral behavior, had given a legal ground for separation 
(Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, p. 517). 



MARRIAGE 69 

husband only enjoyed the usufruct of his wife's property, and 
was sometimes required to mortgage property as security for 
eventual repayment {Der attische Process, pp. 518-519; Wyse, 
Commentary, p. 296; Harpoc. s. v. dTroTi^rjTal) ; and the husband 
who divorced his wife was required to restore the dowry, or 
pay interest ([Dem.] 59, 52; Isae. 2, 9). Demosthenes main- 
tains that interest is by right due his widowed mother from the 
dishonest guardian Aphobus, who had taken possession of the 
dowry left for the widow by the speaker's father, but had 
neither married her, nor restored the dowry, nor granted main- 
tenance (Dem. 2y, §§15, 17; 29, 33). Many passages from 
the orators might be cited, illustrating the solicitude with which 
the Attic law guarded the woman's rights with respect to the 
dowry (e. g. cf. Dem. 30, Hypoth., §§7, 26 ff. ; Isae. 3, 78). 

Again, the dowry had an important bearing on the social 
position of the Athenian wife; and, as the giving of a dowry 
was usually considered indispensable to an honorable marriage, 
so the omission of the dowry was likely to reflect seriously on 
the woman's character, lower her social standing, or subject 
her to the danger of capricious divorce or ill usage. There 
can be no doubt that the dowry was likely to contribute to the 
permanency of the marriage, since it never became the hus- 
band's property, and consequently returned with the woman to 
her guardian in case of divorce (see Jevons, Manual of Greek 
Antiquities, pp. 555-556). We gather from Isaeus that a hus- 
band could put away his wife whenever he chose, when no 
dowry had been given and duly acknowledged ; that the dowry 
was virtually regarded as a safeguard to prevent husband and 
wife from separating; further, that in the case of a marriage 
with a woman of doubtful reputation, the giving of a large 
dowry tended to establish her in good standing with the com- 
munity (Isae. 3, §§36, 28, 29; cf. [Dem.] 40, §§20, 26). Con- 
versely, we learn that not merely to withhold a dowry, but to 
give a woman in marriage with a dowry disproportionally 
small, was likely to reflect unfavorably upon her (Isae. 3, 

§§49. 51)- 

We are not, indeed, to regard the dowry as a legal require- 
ment to the same extent as the formal betrothal or affiancing 
of the woman — the fyyvrjais — ^but rather as an ancient usage 



70 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

that was rarely disregarded (see Charicles, p. 480; cf. Gilbert, 
Greek Constitutional Antiquities, p. 189) ; and it does not ap- 
pear that the omission of the dowry entailed the same civil 
disadvantages which were involved in the omission of the 
€yyvr)(ris (see Bccker, loc. cit.). We have no right to conclude 
that the omission of the dowry necessarily implied a concu- 
binage (Der attische Process, pp. 513-514). At the same 
time there can be no doubt that, as Wyse observes, " the free- 
dom of divorce allowed by Athenian law made the position of 
a wife without a dowry very precarious " ( Commentary, p. 
244). Consequently we find that respectable Athenians were 
always ready to make sacrifices to protect daughters or sisters 
against ill usage and arbitrary divorce, by providing them with 
dowries commensurate with their social position — a large 
dowry usually accompanying the marriage of the daughter of 
a wealthy family, and vice versa (see Wyse, op. cit. p. 243). 
Although daughters had no rights of succession by the side of 
sons, still a father sometimes settled a dowry on his daughter 
by will (Lys. 32, 6). Brothers were under obligation to pro- 
vide their sisters with suitable dowries, and ^' not suffer them 
to grow old unmarried" ([Dem.] 45, 74; Lys. 13, 45; Dem. 
30, 33; Hyp. 2, 12). Sometimes brothers cooperated in the 
performance of this duty ([Dem.] 40, §§6-7, 19; 44, 9). 
Sometimes, again, rich citizens joined in portioning the sisters 
or daughters of those in humble circumstances, because of the 
respectability attaching to a married woman with a dowry 
(Lys. 19, 59). Plutarch records an instance (Aristid. 2"/), 
according to which the State took in charge the betrothal of a 
daughter of Aristides, and gave her a dowry from the public 
funds. We are distinctly given to understand that no one was 
likely to marry a portionless girl (Dem. 45, 74; [Dem.] 59, 
§§8, 112, 113) ; and it would seem that a woman without a 
dower was not likely to gain an honorable position in a house- 
hold (Charicles, p. 131). In Lysias 19, 15, we read of the 
Kvpios who is averse to giving the speaker's sisters in marriage 
to wealthy men who are willing, notwithstanding the prevalent 
prejudice, to take them without a dowry. Isaeus (3, 29) and 
Demosthenes (40, 20) speak of the anpoiKos in a manner which 
clearly distinguishes her from the more fortunate woman who 



MARRIAGE yi 

receives a dowry — the fTrinpoiKos. And that marriage without 
the dowry was rare is shown by the cases in which the Greek 
orators argue for or against the existence of lawful marriage, 
on the ground of the existence or the non-existence of a dowry 
(e. g. cf. Isae. 3, 8; 8, §§8, 9). Sometimes, it is true, Athe- 
nian speakers dwell upon marriage with portionless girls as 
virtuous acts; thus, an instance occurs in Lysias (19, 14), in 
which the speaker alludes to what was apparently a strictly 
honorable marriage with an anpoiKos. But the other side is 
clearly seen in several passages from the Trinummus of Plau- 
tus; here a certain Lesbonicus is greatly disturbed at the 
thought of his sister being wedded by the rich Lysiteles, be- 
cause, without a dower, she will practically enter upon a state 
of concubinage (see Trifi. 374 ff., 605, 612, 688 ff.). 

In general, then, we may conclude that the giving or with- 
holding of a suitable dowry was regarded as a fairly satis- 
factory criterion as to whether the relations existing between 
an Athenian man and woman constituted marriage in the high- 
est sense of the term. If there was no dowry, the children 
were likely to be regarded as v66oi and the mother as a concu- 
bine. If, on the other hand, the dowry had been given and 
properly acknowledged, the woman was evidently entitled to 
all the conjugal rights (see Der attische Process, p. 514). 
And it is by no means improbable that the provision frequently 
made by the State for destitute maidens prevented many young 
women of good Athenian parentage from sinking to the level 
of the concubine (see Vhxi. Aristid, 2y). 

It is interesting to note, in connection with this topic, that 
Aristotle disapproved of large dowries, as detrimental to the 
best interests of the State. Thus, in the Politics 2, 9, 15, in 
criticising the Spartan polity, he maintains that the large dow- 
ries given among the Spartans were largely responsible for the 
inequality of their possessions, for the diminution in the num- 
ber of their fighting men, and for the female ownership of so 
much land. Solon is said to have introduced a law to restrict 
the amount of the <j>cpvri which the bride brought to her hus- 
band (Plut. Sol. 20), the purpose of which was apparently to 
maintain the husband's independence, which might have been 
endangered had too large a dowry accompanied the bride. 
Plato approves the purposes of this law (Laws, 774 C). 



72 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Another reason for the prejudice of the Athenians against 
large dowries is undoubtedly to be found in the wish to main- 
tain the inheritance rights of the sons ; for while, on the one 
hand, the Athenian law undertook to protect daughters against 
neglect on the part of their brothers, it strove, on the other 
hand, to prevent the father from impoverishing the sons by 
the giving of extravagant dowries (see Wyse, op. cit. p. 242). 

The question of lawful concubinage at Athens is exceedingly 
perplexing, and has occasioned much controversy. The prob- 
lem is apparently insoluble, and although the 
Concubinage — literature on the subject is extensive, a very 
Difficulties of brief and general presentation of the case is 
the Problem. the most that the limitations of this work 
will permit. 

That concubinage existed at Athens to a considerable ex- 
tent cannot be doubted. In a passage from Lysias (i, §§30- 
31) the law is mentioned which authorizes an injured husband, 
under certain circumstances, to slay, with impunity to himself, 
his wife's paramour; and the speaker adds that the same pen- 
alty may be inflicted in behalf of concubines, although they 
are " less valuable " than wedded wives. So, also, in De- 
mosthenes (23, 53) a law is cited relating to the protection of 
wives, concubines, and others : 'EaV ns awoKTelvr} . . . inl dafxapri tj 

eTTt f^^Tpi . , . T) eVt TToWaKT} rjp av err eXcvOepois 7rai(r\v fXVy Tovrmv 
€V€Ka fir) (fievyeiv KTtivapTa. But, aS WySC poiuts OUt (p. 319), the 

clause in this law referring to concubines is evidently to be 
interpreted as also including in its operation free foreign 
women, " until more cogent proof is offered that eXevdepos 
cannot in this place bear its usual sense, and must signify some- 
thing else, e. g. 'with full civic rights.' " Gilbert (Greek Cofk 
stitutional Antiquities, p. 190) also calls attention to the dis- 
tinction to be observed between i\iv6epos and yvr}<Tios, and thinks 
that the reference made by the speaker in Demosthenes is to 
the class of mistresses described in Isaeus 3, 39. According to 
the authors of Der attische Process, however (p. 501), the 
passages from Lysias and Demosthenes indicate, at least, that 
concubinage had the sanction of law. 

An interesting passage with regard to the concubine is 
found in the Demosthenic speech Against Neaera (§122), 



MARRIAGE 73 

where we are told that the iraWaKrj is to render daily personal 
service to her lord. We are not, however, to infer from this 
that the concubine habitually occupied a menial position; the 
law relating to the protection of concubines, cited above (Dem. 
23) 53) J would indicate the contrary. 

We read in Diogenes Laertius (2, 26), that in the time of 

Socrates a ^/ri^^Kr/xa made it lawful yafiklv fiev darrjv filav^ iraidoTTOi- 

eiaBai 8e Ka\ e^ irepas. Bccker vicws this Statement with suspi- 
cion {Charicles, p. 474) ; and Hermann {Political Antiquities 
of Greece, pp. 232, 233) so far from regarding this as an 
evidence of the existence of lawful concubinage, thinks that the 
passage indicates a remedy provided against concubinage by 
the Attic law. 

Meier & Schomann {Der attische Process, p. 529) see a 
case of concubinage in the ist oration of Andocides (§§124 
ff.), where Callias, having married the daughter of Ischo- 
machus, afterwards tires of the woman, and marries her 
mother. I hesitate to accept this view, for it seems to me that 
Andocides would scarcely have ventured thus to discuss and 
denounce the conduct of Callias, if it had had the sanction of 
law. From what is known of Andocides, it seems probable 
that he regarded this as a particularly choice scandal, and one 
that was calculated to array the sympathies of the hearers 
against Callias. Aside from this, it is impossible to believe 
that so shocking a state of affairs as that mentioned by Ando- 
cides could have been tolerated by Attic law or society under 
the guise of concubinage, even though all the evidence at our 
disposal indicates that extraordinary looseness existed in mat- 
ters of this sort. 

A passage from the 3d speech of Isaeus (§39), previously 
referred to, would seem to show that concubinage was sanc- 
tioned by law, and that parents sometimes deliberately gave 
their daughters into this relation (see Der attische Process, 
p. 501 ) . Part of the passage reads as follows : eVcl koI ol eVl 

TTaXXaKta OLdovres rots eavrmv navres npoTcpou 8top.o\oyovvTai Trtpi roii' 

Bo6r)(TOfieva)v Ta7s naWaKals. It will be notcd, howcvcr, that the 
phrase ras eavratv is indefinite, and might refer not only to 
daughters or sisters, but apparently to slaves or other de- 
pendents. We have examples of slaves (Ant. i, 14), freed- 



74 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

women (like Neaera in the Demosthenic speech bearing her 
name), and free women of foreign origin (Athen. 13, 61, 592 
A; 13, 58, 590 C D) Hving as concubines with Athenian citi- 
zens ; and the speech of Isaeus from which the above passage 
is cited, together with passages from the comedians (see 
Antiph. apud Athen. 13, 29, 572 A; Kock, Com. Att. Frag. p. 
103), make it clear that Athenian women sometimes sank to 
the level of iraipai, and consequently to that of iraWaKal, inas- 
much as a eraipa might become temporarily converted into a 
naXXaKT} (Athen. 13, 62, 592 D). We cannot determine what 
class of concubines Isaeus has in view in the passage referred 
to (see Wyse, Commentary, pp. 319-320) ; perhaps, therefore, 
it is safest to render the expression ras lavT&v by the general 
term " their women folks," although this rendering of course 
increases the difficulty of attempting to prove from the pas- 
sage anything definite respecting the status of the concubine. 
The 3d and 6th speeches of Isaeus and the 39th and 40th 
Demosthenic orations have been extensively cited as affording 
evidence of the existence of legitimate concubinage at Athens, 
Prominent among scholars who have found in the speeches of 
Isaeus mentioned proof of the existence of this relationship is 
Buermann {Drei Studien auf dem Gehiet des attischen Rechts, 
Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 1877/78, Supplementband 9, pp. 569 ff., 
638 if.). Relying chiefly on the Demosthenic speeches re- 
ferred to, but depending also to a considerable 
Buermann's extent on the 3d of Isaeus' orations, Buermann, 
Theory. in the first of his three essays, tries to show that 

an Athenian citizen, although already duly 
wedded, was permitted by law to form a union with another 
Athenian woman, who was formally betrothed to him by her 
Kvpios, like a wife, although she was not a wife; that the terms 
eyyvav and iyyvaaQai, belonging to lawful marriage, were applied 
to this concubine, and that her children were called legitimate — 
yvrjfTioi. Buermann's views — which, it will be observed, very 
nearly identify the position of the concubine with that of the 
wife — were somewhat favorably received at first, but are no 
longer seriously entertained by the majority of scholars. 
Philippi • ( Ueber Einige Reden des Isaios und Demosthenes, 
Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 25, 1879, PP- 4^3 ^O' while agreeing with 



MARRIAGE 



75 



Buermann in general, nevertheless dissents from his view of 
the issue involved in the speech of Isaeus referred to. Buer- 
mann's theory has been attacked by Hruza {op. cit. i, pp. 25 
ff.), Zimmermann {De Nothorum Athenis Condicione, pp. 10 
ff.), and others (see Der attische Process, pp. 501, 530 ff., 
543), and his position has been shown tO' be untenable. To 
illustrate briefly the difficulties of his position, we may note, for 
example, that his line of argument involves arbitrary treatment 
of parts of Isaeus' 3d oration; and that certain passages {e. g. 
§§4, 14) he is even obliged to set aside as untruths. 

Neither the 6th speech of Isaeus nor the 39th and 40th 
Demosthenic orations appear to afford positive proof of the 
existence of lawful concubinage. Gilbert (op. cit. p. 190) 
says in this connection : " The Demosthenic speeches against 
Boiotos, and the speech of Isaeus on the estate of Philoctemon, 
which were considered the strongest evidence for the existence 
of lawful concubinage, seem to admit of a satisfactory explana- 
tion in the circumstances described in them, without having 
recourse to this theory." Gilbert, moreover (loc. cit.), sees no 
proof of lawful concubinage in Isaeus' 3d speech, and even 
finds in the Demosthenic oration Against Neaera (§§ii8, 122) 
evidence against concubinage. Zimmermann's position is sub- 
stantially the same {op. cit. p. 25). Nor do the authors of Der 
attische Process find in the Demosthenic orations just men- 
tioned any proof of the existence of legitimate concubinage 

based on eyyvrjais (p. 502). 

Becker (op. cit. p. 474) admits the absence of any passage 
directly informing us as to the exact status of the Athenian 
concubine.* Wyse, who strongly opposes the doctrine of law- 

* A very peculiar series of views respecting the Athenian law of 
marriage are set forth by Miiller (op. cit., Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 1899, 
Supplementband 25, pp. 744. ff., 786 ff,)- He thinks that some time after 
the ill-fated Sicilian expedition certain startling changes were intro- 
duced into the marriage laws, doubtless with the view of increasing the 
number of the citizens of Athens. He conjectures — to state his theory 
most briefly — that, side by side with marriage, the Athenians estab- 
lished at this time a new form of union, which he terms " Nebenehe." 
According to this arrangement, an Athenian already duly wedded was 
permitted and even encouraged by the State to take, in addition to his 
Athenian wife, another consort — a " Nebenfrau " or secondary wife — 



76 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

ful concubinage, has admirable remarks upon the subject in his 
introductions to Isaeus' 3d and 6th orations, to which the in- 
terested reader is referred {op. cit. pp. 273 ff., 483 ff.). 

Before concluding this chapter, I shall speak briefly of the 
motives and ideals which dominated the Athenians in their 
marriage relations. For, while this theme has already been 

touched upon in connection with other topics, 
Motives and and while the peculiar standards of marriage 
Ideals in engendered by the social conditions at Athens 

Marriage. have doubtless impressed the reader already, 

yet the chapter would obviously be incomplete 
were not the topic in question presented to the reader in a 
more concrete form. 

And first, it is evident that marriage was regarded by the 
Athenians as a universal duty (see Becker, Charicles, p. 473). 
So great, in short, was the importance ascribed to marriage, 
that Solon is said to have made it compulsory (Plut. De Amove 
Prol. 2) ; but the law seems eventually to have fallen into dis- 
use * (Stob. Tit. 68, 37; Plant. Mil. 67^ ff.). Nor can we 



who was neither ywi] nor 'Kok'kaKrj^ and in fact had no distinct title in 
Greek. This woman might be an Athenian citizen or a person of 
foreign extraction, and her children possessed certain clearly-defined and 
valuable rights. Miiller assumes that this system did not last long, 
being abolished on the restoration of the democracy in 403 B. C. His 
theory is not only inherently improbable, but is unsupported by satis- 
factory evidence; and when applied to a certain Phile, a prominent 
character in Isaeus' 3d speech, it involves unwarranted and arbitrary 
treatment of statements of fact. We are compelled to set aside Miiller's 
series of hypotheses, and to conclude that the institution of " Nebenehe " 
has existed chiefly in the imagination of the German scholar. The 
curious reader who desires to become familiar with recent theories on 
the subject of the naTCkaKr}, is referred to Miiller's discussion, and in 
particular to pages 710 and following. 

* Wyse, commenting upon the observation made in Isaeus 7, 30, to 
the effect that all persons who are about to die manifest solicitude with 
regard to an heir, and that even childless men insure the perpetuity 
of their line by adoption, observes indignantly : " This remark should 
not be reverently quoted as if it were a scientific law. There were 
esprits forts at Athens in the 4th century, and men sometimes died 
unmarried and without leaving behind them an adopted child (§6. 4 n., 
XI. 49, [Dem.] 44. 18)" (Commentary, p. 575). 



MARRIAGE 77 

wonder at the solicitude of the Athenians with respect to mar- 
riage, when we remember that they held the welfare of the 
individual, the family, and the State, to be dependent upon 
uninterrupted lines of posterity. 

The dominant motive which actuated the Athenians in mar- 
riage — the production of offspring — is expressed in the 
Demosthenic speech Against Neaera (§122), in the words, 

txpfxiv . « . TCis Se yvvaiKa^ rod Traidonoieladai yprjaions. So, tOO, in 

the Oeconomicus of Xenophon, the youthful husband Ischo- 
machus is represented as declaring that the first motive in 
marriage is the perpetuation of the human race (Chap. 7, §19; 
cf. Arist. Nic. Eth. 8, 14, p. 1162 ; Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 4 ff. ; Plant. 
Mil. 682, 703, 704). 

In their desire for offspring, the Athenians were actuated by 
a feeling of reverence for the gods and the deified ancestors, a 
consciousness of obligation to the State, a regard for their race 
and lineage, and a feeling of solicitude for their own future 
welfare. That the religion of the race made it incumbent upon 
each citizen to leave behind those who should continue to per- 
form the customary rites in honor of the gods and the ancestors 
has, I think, been made sufficiently clear ; and Plato admirably 
expresses the thought when he says, in effect, that every indi- 
vidual is under obligations to provide for a successor to take 
his own place as a minister of the Divinity (Laws, 773 E). 
Again, it was deemed essential, as we have observed, that the 
maintenance of the State should be provided for by an un- 
broken line of descendants in each family ; and we have already 
noted the political as well as the religious motives of the State 
for perpetuating the family line and encouraging the ancestor 
worship. It was therefore natural that the individual should 
regard marriage, with reference to the production of offspring, 
as an imperative duty to his country. And as to the Greek's 
feeling of personal responsibility for the perpetuation of his 
race and lineage, and his somewhat selfish feeling of anxiety 
for his individual welfare and future tranquillity, there is no 
need of further elucidation at this point; it is clear that such 
feelings constituted most potent motives for marriage. The 
strength of these feelings is illustrated by the wide prevalence, 
among childless Athenians, of the institution of adoption; and 



78 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

by the constantly recurring expressions of horror, on the part 
of Greek writers, at the thought of a " desolate heritage." 
The universality and potency of the feelings of the Greeks with 
regard to posterity are well illustrated in a striking passage 
from Isaeus (7, 30), to which I have several times referred: 
"All men who are about to die take forethought for them- 
selves, in order that they may not leave their homes destitute 
of heirs, but that there may be some one who shall offer the 
sacrifices and perform all the customary rites in their honor; 
wherefore, even though they die childless, yet at any rate they 
leave behind a son by adoption. And not only do men take 
cognizance of this individually, but also the State publicly 
recognizes these obligations ; for by law the State enjoins upon 
the archon the supervision of the homes, in order that they 
may not be left destitute of heirs." 

An important personal motive which influenced the Athe- 
nians in their desire for children was the wish to secure pro- 
tectors for the parents in their old age; thus, in Xenophon's 
Oeconomicus, Ischomachus, after speaking of the importance 
of perpetuating the human race, explains to his wife that their 
children will be an aid to them, and in particular will care for 
them when they themselves have grown old (Chap. 7, §§12, 
19; cf. Lys. 13, 45). 

Among other grounds for marriage may be mentioned the 
desire to gain worldly comfort, and the wish to secure a re- 
liable housekeeper (Arist. Nic. Eth. 8, 14, p. 1162; [Dem.] 59, 
122). Xeonophon speaks of the desirability of securing by 
marriage an appropriate division of labor, wherein the man 
performs the out-door work, while the woman guards and 
supervises the interests in the home (Oecon. 7, 22). In the Tri- 
nummus of Plautus (1182 ff.) the father requires the son to 
marry in order to reform him. (Cf. Ter. Heaut 1055 ff.) In 
a passage from Isaeus (2, 4 ff.) an aged man named Menecles 
asks for the hand of the speaker's younger sister ; and the girl 
is given to him in marriage by her brothers, chiefly on the 
ground of the friendship previously existing between the girl's 
father and the prospective bridegroom. In Menander's reapyos 
(vss. 68 ff.), the aged Cleaenetus proposes to marry the girl 
with whom the son of the family is already involved, out of 
gratitude to the girl's brother. 



MARRIAGE 



79 



It is obvious that the Athenian ideals of marriage were on a 
plane far below those of modern times, and in some respects 
inferior to the standards of the Homeric age. This, of course, 
was inevitable in a condition of society in which 
Ignoble woman's position was, on the whole, so low and 
Marriage so devoid of influence in the home and in the 
Ideals. community. The wide prevalence of concubin- 

age, whether authorized by law or not; the ten- 
dency of the citizens to resort so frequently to separation and 
divorce, and the prominence of the haipai in Athenian society, — 
all these conditions may be cited as illustrative of the ignoble 
ideals which the Athenians too often entertained with respect 
to marriage. 

Menander's assertion that marriage was " a necessary evil " 
(Frag. 651, p. 192 Kock), while certainly not illustrative of 
Athenian feeling, may nevertheless be regarded as indicative 
of the low ideals of marriage which are everywhere prevalent 
in the works of the Greek and Roman writers 
Ideals of Mar- of comedy. Could we accept Aristophanes' 
riage as seen utterances as actually illustrative of Athe- 
in Comedy. nian feeling, we should be compelled to con- 

clude that the ideals of marriage entertained 
by both the men and the women of Athens were utterly base 
(see Eccles. 22^ ff., 720 ff.). But v/e must bear in mind — and 
this can hardly be reiterated too emphatically — that it is the 
tendency and the privilege of the comic poets of antiquity de- 
liberately to exaggerate and misrepresent for the sake of comic 
effect. No one would dream of accepting seriously Aristoph- 
anes' distorted representations of Socrates, for example; and 
it is clear that if we attempt to view Athenian ideals of social 
life — and particularly of marriage — through the medium of 
Attic comedy alone, we shall receive altogether erroneous im- 
pressions. Jebb says of the works of Aristophanes : " There 
is a play of fancy as extravagant as a modern burlesque; the 
whole world is turned topsy-turvy ; gods and mortals alike are 
whirled through the motley riot of one great carnival " ( Greek 
Literature, p. 100). Similarly, Mahaify maintains that the 
great Athenian dramatist is not to be depended upon as an 
historical authority; and he cites in support of his view the 



8o THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

« 
conclusion reached by Miiller-Striibing in his memorable work, 
Aristophanes und die hisforische Kritik (see Social Life in 
Greece, pp. 209-210). 

A situation thoroughly typical of the New and Middle 
Comedy is set forth in the Tea>py6s of Menander (vss. i ff.). 
Here we meet with an amorous and unprincipled youth, who 
finds, on returning home after an absence, that his father has 
determined upon his marriage with his half-sister, and that 
the wedding preparations are in full swing. He is dismayed 
at the situation, for already he has involved himself in an in- 
trigue with another girl, whom he wishes to marry; and he 
proposes to thwart his father's wishes. At this juncture a 
slave appears, and tells the distracted mother of the girl with 
whom the youth has become involved, that his master, an aged 
man, out of gratitude to another member of the family, will 
marry the girl, take her to his country home, and thus relieve 
a strained situation. Here the fragment ends, amid the grief 
and perplexity of the mother of the injured girl, who is natur- 
ally more disturbed than ever at this unexpected turn. And 
although this fragment contains only 87 lines, and although we 
possess altogether only a little more than 100 lines of the play, 
still the characters and situations are precisely those which so 
often confront us in the Greek and Roman comedy, and espe- 
cially in Terence. Now one of the most painful features of 
this typical sketch — apart from the thoroughly frivolous and 
degenerate tone of society here revealed — is the situation which 
involves the downfall of the heroine — her irretrievable down- 
fall, from our point of view. For the ancient Greeks, for the 
most part, seem, at times, to have been incapable of appre- 
ciating the sentiment expressed by Horace: 

Neque amissos colores 
Lana refert medicata fuco, 
Nee vera virtus, cum semel excidit 
Curat reponi deterioribus. 

(Odes 3, 5, 27-30; cf. Xen. Hiero, 3, 4.) 

The ultimate marriage of the heroine of the comedy and her 
restoration to the plane of social respectability, seem to have 
been entirely satisfying to the Greeks of Menander's time. 



MARRIAGE 8l 

Perhaps even more repellant than such a situation as that 
which has been described — and more repugnant even than the 
portraits of the iraipai with which the Greek and Roman come- 
dies abound — are the cases recorded by the comic poets of 
immoral old men who, either secretly or in defiance of their 
wives, deliberately cooperate with their sons in vice. The 
situation which is disclosed to us in the argument of Plautus' 
Asinaria, is a case in point, and would seem to indicate that the 
standards of married life during the period of Middle and 
New Comedy were hopelessly base.* Perhaps such cases as 
these were exceptional among the Athenians, or typical rather 
of the degenerate Alexandrian period than of the age of the 
orators ; perhaps — as Mahaffy evidently supposes — Menander 
and his contemporaries — followed by their Roman imitators — 
were addressing themselves chiefly to the most frivolous ele- 
ments of society ; perhaps the poets continued to reproduce such 
types and situations because the latter had become fixed and 
conventional, and because the authors lacked the courage or 
power of initiation to introduce new themes (see Mahaffy, 
Greek Life and Thought, pp. 114 ff.) ; be that as it may, the 
impressions which these writers impart to us of Athenian 
social standards in general, and of marriage ideals in particular, 
are distinctly painful. 

The impressions which the orators give us of Athenian mar- 
riage ideals — as indicated in numerous citations throughout this 
and the preceding chapter — are, in the main, decidedly 
gloomy. But we must bear in mind — and 
Impressions this can hardly be too often reiterated — that 

derived from in the orators the strictly legal and formal 
the Orators. aspects of social life predominate; and it 

would manifestly be as unfair to judge the 

* The argument is as follows : 

Amanti argento filio auxiliarier 
Sub imperio uiuens uolt senex uxorio : 
Itaque ob asinos relatum pretium Saureae 
Numerari iussit seruo(lo) Leonidae. 
Ad amicam id fertur : cedit noctem filius. 
Riualis amens ob (p)raereptam mulierem 
Is rem omnem uxori per parasitum nuntiat. 
Accurrit uxor ac uirum e lustris rapit. 



82 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Athenians solely by the writings of the orators, as to form an 
estimate of modern society from the records of the law courts 
alone. 

The attitude of the philosophers toward marriage is inter- 
esting. Attention has already been drawn to Plato's advocacy 
of the plan of making the occupations of men and women 
practically identical {Rep. 455 B ff.), and of establishing a 

communal marriage for the guardian 
Attitude of the classes, in his ideal commonwealth {Ihid, 
Philosophers. 458 A ff.). It is amazing to a modern 

reader that the great philosopher — however 
praiseworthy his motives may have been — should have delib- 
erately proposed to strike so deadly a blow at married life and 
the sanctity of the home. It is to the everlasting credit of 
Aristotle that he opposed so earnestly and so successfully these 
communistic views of Plato (see PoL 2, Chap. 3, 4). Aris- 
totle's conception of marriage is distinctly different from 
Plato's; it is more spiritual and more modem, ethically re- 
garded. I cannot do better than to quote, in this connection, 
a few lines from the admirable excursus on marriage and the 
family, contained in pages 327-328 of the Susemihl & Hicks 
edition of the Politics. The author summarizes in an inter- 
esting manner Aristotle's views on marriage as contained in 
the Nicomachean Ethics (8, 12, 7, 1162 A 16): "Between 
man and wife .... there is a natural tie of love and friend- 
ship; for man is by nature even more designed for fellowship 
in marriage than in the state, inasmuch as the family is prior 
in time and more indispensable than the state .... Human 
beings do not marry merely to bring children into the world, 
but to share their lives together. From the outset the func- 
tions of man and wife are distinct; by making their different 
endowments common property they mutually assist each other. 
Hence, such a relationship of love and friendship combines 
utility with pleasure; and this pleasure, provided both are ex- 
cellent in their own way, rests on the mutual delight of each 
in the other's diverse excellence. Children are the bond of 
union as being the common property of the parents ; for what 
is possessed in common strengthens their union; and this is 
the reason why a marriage is more easily dissolved when there 
are no children." 



MARRIAGE 83 

Susemihl also calls attention to the fact that it is " not simply 
its impracticability that Aristotle urges against the commu- 
nity of wives and children." ..." Aristotle has upheld against 
him (Plato) the right and dignity of marriage in its relation to 
civil life, has shown what is at stake if marriage be abolished, 
the loss of the most primitive and sacred ties which bind man 
to man before a state arises to develop out of the family a 
higher unity" {Ihid. loc. cit.). 

These are truly admirable utterances, and if they stood 
alone they would fully justify us in assigning to Aristotle a 
distinctly advanced position as regards marriage and family 
relations. But, unfortunately, Aristotle's philosophy of mar- 
riage has another side, and one which is shocking to a modern ; 
he not only deliberately advocates the exposure of infants 
suffering with any physical disability, but, in order to restrict 
population, he recommends the employment of aV/SXwo-ty {PoL 
4 (7), 16, 15). Herein Aristotle is making perhaps a more 
deadly attack upon the sanctity of marriage than Plato in the 
Republic; for while the latter countenances the exposure of 
infants under certain circumstances {Rep. 460 C D, 461 C), 
yet he is not as insistent and cold-blooded as Aristotle is, in the 
matter of restricting the population; and in the Laws Plato's 
whole attitude becomes more humane. 

It is deplorable that these great thinkers should have de- 
liberately advocated such monstrous doctrines ; and it is hardly 
to be wondered at that the people at large should have enter- 
tained low ideals of marriage and family life, when their in- 
tellectual leaders had gone so far astray. 

It would be utterly unfair, however, to conclude that the 
Athenians in their marriage relations were wholly dominated 
by ignoble ideals; for — apart from the ad- 
Higher Ideals mirable sentiments expressed by Aristotle — 
in Marriage we have evidence that at times they mani- 

not unknown. fested a keen appreciation of the sacredness 
of marriage. Thus, Plutarch tells us of the 
deep and unselfish love of a certain Callias, who, in order to 
win as his bride the sister of Cimon, paid her father's debt 
{Cim. 4). Another interesting passage from Plutarch {Sol. 
20) points out that marriage should not be mercenary in 



84 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

its nature, but that kindness and affection should be among 
the motives for the union. Xenophon in his Oeconomicus, as 
we have seen, presents to us a really attractive picture of con- 
jugal happiness ; and in one passage (7, 42) he sets forth beau- 
tiful marriage ideals ; here the young husband pledges devotion 
to his girl-wife, and assures her that with the lapse of years 
she will not be less honored, but even more esteemed in the 
household, as the partner of the husband and the guardian of 
the home for the children. He also speaks of the mutual 
dependence of husband and wife, each of whom is incomplete 
without the other (Ibid.' §28). Other passages from Greek 
authors, indicating affectionate and confidential relations be- 
tween husband and wife, might be cited (e. g. see [Dem.] 59, 
no; Aristoph. Wasps, 610-612). And even the Roman comic 
poets repeatedly expatiate upon the passion of enamored youths, 
as in the case of Charinus and Pamphilus in the Andria of 
Terence, and Antipho and Phaedria in the Phormio (see 
Phorm. vss. 80 ff., 200 ff., 485 ff.). It is highly improbable 
that the comic poets would have so frequently presented such 
situations as these, had they not occasionally, at least, had their 
counterparts in real life. 

But it is in the lyric, and, above all, in the tragic poets, that 
we find suggestions and clear indications that the Greeks often 

entertained far higher ideals of marriage 
Ideals as seen than those which are presented by the 

in the Lyric and orators and the comic poets. The famous 
Tragic Poets. poem of Sappho, addressed to a beloved 

maiden, and revealing a romantic and pas- 
sionate attachment, can hardly, I think, be cited as illustrative 
of the devotion that might be found in marriage, in view of the 
possibility that the verses represent merely the attitude of one 
woman toward another. A passage from Pseudo-Phocylides, 
however (vss. I95-I97^see Bergk's Anth. Lyr.), clearly indi- 
cate that admirable standards of marriage sometimes prevailed 
among the Greeks. And in the tragic poets, in particular, 
lofty ideals, noble motives, and admirable relations between 
husband and wife are frequently set forth. A striking passage 
occurs in the Agamemnon of Aeschylus, in which Clytaemnes- 
tra eloquently expresses the grief and loneliness which she feels 



MARRIAGE 85 

in her husband's protracted absence (vss. 855 ff.) ; and in 
another interesting passage the chorus vividly depicts the silent 
grief of Menelaus after Helen's departure with Paris (Ibid. 
412 ff.). Haemon in the Antigone of Sophocles pleads for 
his betrothed and reveals a deep and passionate devotion (see 
vss. 635 ff., 751, 762-765) ; Antigone at a critical point in the 
tragedy exclaims, 2> (jyikraO^ Atfiav, &s a drifid^d naTTjp (vs. 572) ; 
and the chorus, in a passage of marvelous beauty, extols the 
power of love (vss. 781 ff.). In the Electra of Euripides we 
see the most admirable relations existing between Electra and 
her peasant-husband — ^mutual respect, affection, and thought- 
fulness (vss. 64 ff., 345 ff.). A long and beautiful recognition 
scene between Menelaus and Helen in Egypt is portrayed by 
Euripides in his Helen (vss. 625 ff.). And the Alcestis in 
particular contains beautiful passages indicative of happiness 
in marriage; thus, Euripides represents Alcestis, even while 
the shadow of death is hovering over her, as praying that her 
children may marry happily (vss. 163 ff.) ; and elsewJiere in 
the play the poet sets forth admirable marriage ideals (cf. vss 
915 ff., 473 ff.). So also in a passage from the Ion the chorus 
praises marriage (see especially vss. 488-489). But other 
passages from Euripides vituperative of marriage may also 
be cited ; thus in the Alcestis the chorus expresses the view that 
marriage brings more pain than joy (vss. 238 ff., 878 ff.). 
So, also, in the Medea, the chorus expatiates upon the ad- 
vantages of a single life (vss. 1081 ff. ; cf. 230 ff.). It is, of 
course, obvious that in each of the above instances Euripides is 
merely making his characters say what is suitable to the occa- 
sion, without necessarily giving his own views. And it is 
evident that we must be on our guard against accepting unre- 
servedly particular passages as proving a fact or establishing 
a theory respecting Greek private life ; for the aforesaid pas- 
sage may be elsewhere contradicted ; and, in the long run, it is 
only evidence in the aggregate that is clearly convincing. 

A very charming Greek tale of courtship and marriage, and 
one that has had a far-reaching influence on literature, is the 
story of Acontius and Cydippe, contained originally in the 
Aetia of Callimachus. Mahaffy says of this story : " We have 
lost all knowledge of the special merits of the poet's treat- 
ment, but the 20th and 21st Epistles (Heroides) of Ovid, a 



86 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

free imitator of Callimachus, and the prose resume 
Story of by Aristaenetus, give us all the main facts of this 
Acontius remarkable story — remarkable because we may 
and regard it undoubtedly as the first literary original 

Cydippe. of that sort of tale which makes falling in love and 
happy marriage the beginning and the end, while the 
obstacles to the union form the details, of the plot " ( Greek 
Life and Thought, pp. 236-237) . The story goes that Acontius 
and Cydippe, the youthful hero and heroine of the romance, 
both surpassingly beautiful, accidentally met at a festival of 
Delos, and immediately became deeply enamored with one 
another. But the parents on both sides were exceedingly un- 
sympathetic, and the girl's parents, in particular, strenuously 
opposed the match, and even attempted to marry their daughter 
to another. Eventually, however, after a long separation and 
many trials and great unhappiness on both sides, the lovers 
were united and happily married. Mahaffy says : " Here, 
then, is the first specimen of a simple love tale, such as pro- 
duced among the later Greek endless imitations in prose and 
verse. We have still extant the Hero and Leander in verse, in 
prose the whole body of Greek novels, which ring everlasting 
changes on the same topic. We have them again in the Meta- 
morphoses and Epistles of Heroines of Ovid. From them they 
pass into the early Italian tales, and so into the Romeo and 
Juliet, the Orlando and Rosalind, of Shakespeare. From that 
time on we all know what universal sway the prose romance or 
sentimental novel has attained all over Europe." 

" But," Mahaffy continues, " perhaps the newest of all the 
features in this forerunner of the Greek novel, was the virgin 
purity of the maiden ; and it may well astonish us that an age 
not remarkable for morality, nay, rather abounding in license 
both of living and of writing, should have laid hold with such 
interest of so noble a condition. The world they * describe 
is not a moral world. . . . But the heroine, like the lady in 
Camus, is proof against both dangers and temptations. It was 
therefore a real crown of glory left for Callimachus, to propo- 
gate a newer and higher view of life among men " ( Greek 
Life and Thought, pp. 238, 240). 

* Mahaffy is referring to the later Greek novelists. 



MARRIAGE 8/ 

If we could convince ourselves — as the optimistic Mahaffy 
is evidently convinced — that the charming love story written 
by the distinguished Alexandrian poet really represents ideals 
and conditions prevailing in the times of the Attic orators, we 
should find in this romance a pleasing antidote for the gloomy 
impressions derived from the orators, philosophers, and comic 

poets. If, moreover, we could interpret the 
Concluding tragic poets as portraying, for the most part. 
Reflections, the ideals of the age in which they lived, rather 

than those of the heroic past, we should have 
additional grounds for supposing that true happiness in mar- 
riage was the rule rather than the exception with the Athe- 
nians of the Age of Pericles and the times immediately follow- 
ing. And it can hardly be doubted that such ideal sketches as 
those of Xenophon and the tragic poets represent types which 
sometimes were found in actual life. But, on the other hand, 
it seems undeniable that in the tragic poets the spirit of the 
past dominates ; and that the beautiful and artistic pictures to 
which we have referred represent, for the most part, the ideal 
rather than the actual in Greek life. Moreover, it seems alto- 
gether improbable that the ideals so admirably set forth by 
Callimachus and his imitators are really representative of the 
age of Isaeus and Demosthenes, rather than illustrative of 
the Alexandrian epoch. The evidence at our disposal seems 
clearly to show that the situation as portrayed by the orators 
is approximately correct ; and that the counterparts of Acontius 
and Cydippe, and of Ischomachus and his youthful wife, were 
rarely to be found at Athens during the most brilliant period 
of her intellectual supremacy. The excessive devotion of the 
men of Athens to public life, intellectual pursuits, religious and 
secular celebrations, war and athletics ; the comparative indif- 
ference of husbands and fathers to all domestic ties ; the sub- 
servient position to which mothers, wives, and daughters were 
relegated ; the subordination of the family to the interests of 
the State; and the absence of marital and parental authority, — 
these were among the causes which made the Athenian mar- 
riage so insecure, and so far removed from the best ideals of 
other ages in the world's history. 



CHAPTER VI. 

The Relations of Parents ANt) Children. 

When we approach the subject of the relations existing be- 
tween Athenian parents and children, we are immediately im- 
pressed by certain marked differences between the Roman and 
the Attic law, and particularly by the striking contrast between 
the unlimited power which the Roman law conferred upon the 
Roman father to do whatsoever he pleased with his own, and 
the absolute dependence of the Athenian father upon the 
operation of the inheritance laws.* The rights of the Athe- 
nian son were most jealously guarded, and the father had 

little opportunity to dispose of his prop- 
Limitations of erty according to his inclinations. Perrot 
the Athenian well says : " The will of man had not the 
Father's Power, same sovereign and creative force with the 

Greeks as with the Romans. . . . The will 
of the Athenian testator is enchained by the law, which im- 

* Such limitations of power on the part of the Greek father, however, 
certainly did not exist in early times. Grote characterizes the situation 
at the dawn of history as follows : " Here we recognize once more 
the characteristic attribute of the Grecian heroic age, — the omnipotence 
of private force, tempered and guided by family sympathies, and the 
practical nullity of that collective sovereign afterwards called the City, — 
who in historical Greece became the central and paramount source of 
obligation, but who appears yet only in the background, as a germ of 
promise for the future" {History of Greece, Vol. 2, p. 93). Maine, 
Ancient Law (pp. 122 ff.), says: "The effect of the evidence derived 
from comparative jurisprudence is to establish that view of the primae- 
val condition of the human race which is known as the Patriarchal 
Theory The eldest male parent — the eldest ascendent — is abso- 
lutely supreme in his household. His dominion extends to life and 
death and is as unqualified over his children and their houses as over 
his slaves ; indeed, the relations of sonship and serfdom appear to differ 
in little beyond the higher capacity which the child in blood possesses 

of becoming one day the head of a family himself If I were 

attempting, for the more special purposes of the jurist, to express com- 
pendiously the character of the situation in which mankind disclose 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 89 

periously bestows the inheritance upon the sons and divides it 
among them in equal portions. Solon consecrated in a formal 
manner the rights of the son to inherit the father's property '* 
{L' Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes, p. 370). 

Proceeding now to a detailed consideration of the relations 
existing between father and child, we observe that after the 
birth of a child, and its presentation to the father, it was cus- 
tomary for the latter either to acknowledge the infant, — thereby 
conferring upon it all the rights and privileges belonging to the 
son or daughter, — or, as occasionally happened, to repudiate 
the child (see Becker, Charicles, p. 218), and even to condemn 
it to death outright (Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, p. 501 ; 

cf. Ter. Heaut. 634-635). An instance in 
Acknowledgment which a father disowns a son when 
and Repudiation formally presented to him (although he 
of Children — subsequently acknowledges the child), is 

Infanticide. recorded by Andocides (i, §§126, 127). 

Becker observes that the barbarous prac- 



themselves at the dawn of history, I should be satisfied to quote a few 
verses from the Odyssey of Homer: 

Tolaiv 6* ovT* ayopal pov'kT](p6pot ovre dejuiarec, 

de/iiarevei 6e eKaarog 

Tzai6uv 7j6' a}\,6x(^v^ ovS" aXkrjT^uv ciXeyovaiv. 

'They have neither assemblies for consultation nor themistes, but 
everyone exercises jurisdiction over his wives and his children, and 
they pay no regard to one another.' These lines are applied to the 
Cyclops, and it may not perhaps be an altogether fanciful idea when I 
suggest that the Cyclops is Homer's type of an alien and less advanced 
civilization However that may be, the verses condense in them- 
selves the sum of the hints which are given us by legal antiquities." 
Such, then, appears to have been the situation at the dawn of the 
historical epoch; and certainly during the heroic age. Since the State 
is, as yet, practically non-existent, unrestrained individual power and 
independence of family life dominate all else. But, with the develop- 
ment and organization of the State, and with the establishment of the 
laws of Solon, there comes a change in the spirit of the times ; indi- 
vidual power and parental authority are greatly circumscribed, and the 
rights and privileges of the family become of minor importance as 
compared with the obligations to religion and to the State. 



90 THE A THEN I AN FAMILY 

tice of exposing children was actually authorized by law,* but 
thinks that exposure was " not so frequent in regular marriage 
as has been usually supposed {Charicles, loc. cit.). It would 
seem that infant girls were especially likely to fall victims to a 
father's cruelty,t as is indicated in a passage from Terence 
(Heaut. 634-635; cf. Stob. Flor. yy, 7). Meier & Schomann 
call attention to the fact that in this play of Terence the expo- 
sure of the child occupies an important and essential place in 
the development of the plot ; and the same authorities deny the 
probability of the introduction of any Roman elements into the 
fahula palliata, in so far as the exposure of infants is concerned 
{Der attische Process, p. 528; cf. Aristoph. Frogs, 1189-90; 
Thesm. 505 ; Schol. on Wasps, 289). 

We may conclude that the tendency on the part of mothers 
to expose children born out of wedlock was particularly marked 
(Der attische Process, loc. cit.). 

Undoubtedly an additional reason for the frequent exposure 
of female children may be found in the disinclination on the 
part of the father to incur the burden of portioning the daugh- 
ter. Thus, Menander says (p. 9, Kock) : 

Xa\€7r6v -ye Bvydrrjp Krrjfia Kal dvadiaSeroVj 

* The attitude of the State in authorizing the exposure of sickly or 
disabled children is no doubt largely to be accounted for on the ground 
that the Greek child was regarded primarily as a member of the State 
rather than of the family; and the subordination of the family to the 
State is everywhere apparent. 

t McLennan, Studies in Ancient History — Primitive Marriage, pp. 
90-91, thinks that the custom of infanticide, especially as regards female 
children, originated in the conditions prevailing in prehistoric society, 
when the efficient services of the men were so constantly needed for 
protecting and providing for the family group. McLennan says: "It 
would be to the interest of every horde to rear, when possible, its 
healthy male children. It would be less to its interest to rear females, 
as they would be less capable of self-support, and of contributing, by 
their exertions, to the common good. In this lies the only explanation 
which can be accepted of the origin of those systems of female infanti- 
cide still existing, the discovery of which, from time to time so shocks 
our humanity. It is of no consequence by what theories the races who 
practice infanticide now defend the practice. There can be no doubt 
that its origin is everywhere referable to that early time of struggle 
and necessity." 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 91 

and in another passage from the same author (p. 20, Kock) 
we read: 

ivhaifiovia rovT eariv vlos povp ixav 
aWa OvyaTrjp KTTJfx eVrii/ fpyStbfg Trarpl. 

Again, it is probable that children were sometimes exposed in 
order that parents might escape the trouble of rearing them, or 
in order that the inheritance might not be subdivided too 
minutely. Thus we read in the Pastorals of Longus (Erofici 
Scrip tores, Didot collection, Bk. 4, p. 173) : *AXXoi naHpet 

(^tBrjKav TovToPj itrwy naidiav TTpfa^vrtpcov aXis ex^ovTfs* (Of. Icr. 

Adelph. 807 ff.) 

Apparently an Athenian father was not authorized to recog- 
nize a child whose mother was not an Athenian citizen (see 
Der attische Process , p. 533). 

Unquestionably a father could, and frequently did disown 
and abandon a weakly child, or one afflicted with a physical 
disability; this, at any rate, is the inference drawn from the 
philosophers ; and we have already noted that Plato and Aris- 
totle express their approval of infanticide, under certain condi- 
tions (Plato, Rep. 460 D, 461 C; Arist. Pol. 4 (7) 16, 15 ff.). 
In the Theaetetus of Plato (151 C) there occurs a significant 
passage which clearly shows the prevalence of the practice; 
here Socrates is comparing the anger of his pupils, when first 
confuted in the midst of their prejudices, with the fury of a 
young mother who has been deprived of her child, and he says : 
" And if I ... . take away and expose your first-born, do not 
be angry with me after the manner of women, when their first 
children are taken from them." 

Susemihl remarks with regard to the practice of infanticide,"^ 
that the example of Sparta had a determining influence on both 
Plato and Aristotle, and adds : " In all other Greek states it 
was left to the father's decision whether he would expose his 
child or not ; but at Sparta a committee of the eldest members 

* In view of the undoubted prevalence of infanticide among the 
Athenians, it is not surprising that the literature of the Greeks — with the 
exception of a few late epigrams — contains almost no references to the 
grief of parents bereft of their children (see Mahaffy, Old Greek Edu- 
cation, pp. 12-13). The passage above cited from the Theaetetus is a 
notable exception. 



92 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

of the Phyle decided, and in accordance with their decision the 
deformed or weakly child had to be dispatched to the place of 
exposure" {The Politics of Aristotle, p. 552). 

Jowett & Campbell (Plato's Republic, Vol. in, p. 232), in 
commenting on the passages from the Republic and the Poli- 
tics, remark that " they are not in any degree at variance with 
Greek feeling." ..." On the whole," our authorities continue, 
" we must conclude that the only reason for denying Plato to 
be a maintainer of infanticide is the wish to acquit him of 
allowing a practice so repugnant to modern Christian notions." 

In connection with the subject of the acknowledgment and 
repudiation of children, it is interesting to note that the oath 
of the mother, as to the identity of the father, carried the utmost 
weight. Thus, in Aristotle's Rhetoric, 2, 23, 11, we find this 

statement I mpi t&v rcKvatv ai yvvaiKii TTavra)(ov biop'i^ovcn t aXrjBes. 

Aristotle then cites two instances in which the woman's state- 
ments regarding the children are ac- 
The Mother's Oath, cepted as final. One of the instances 

cited is evidently that of a certain Man- 
tias whose experiences are described by the speaker in the 39th 
and 40th Demosthenic orations (see especially 39, §§3 ff. ; 40, 
§§6 ff. ; the passage has already been cited in connection with 
another topic). Here we observe that the eldest of the sons of 
a woman named Plango, with whom Mantias had long been 
enamored, tries to compel Mantias to acknowledge himself and 
his brother as sons, in order that they may inherit part of 
Mantias' property. The claim is resisted, and the matter is 
referred to arbitration. Hereupon Plango resorts to an exti^a- 
ordinary device to gain a judgment in her sons' favor. She 
promises, in consideration of a sum of money, to make oath 
before the arbitrator that Mantias is not the father of her 
sons ; but she deceives him, and at the critical moment she 
swears that Mantias is the father of the young men, whereupon 
he is compelled to acknowledge them. The exact relations of 
Plango to Mantias, and consequently the legal status of her 
sons before this culminating act on the part of Mantias, are 
uncertain (see Zimmermann, De Nothorum Athenis Condi- 
done, p. 12) ; but these questions are immaterial in considering 
the fact of Plango's oath. 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 93 

The weight carried by the woman's oath,* under such cir- 
cumstances, is extraordinary, when we consider the general 
attitude of the Athenians with respect to women ; the mother's 
statement as to the child's parentage seems to have been re- 
garded as conclusive evidence. The oath of this woman 
Plango, who was evidently an unprincipled person, simply revo- 
lutionizes the family affairs of Mantias. According to the 
speaker, Mantias is compelled, against his will {Or. 40, 54), 
to enroll the woman's sons in his own phratry, thus virtually 
adopting them {Or. 39, §§20, 29), and practically admitting 
them to the sons' rights and privileges {Or. 40, 11) ; and 
Mantias' acknowledged son, unlike the Philoctemon mentioned 
by Isaeus, seems to have been powerless to prevent this (cf. 
Isae. 6, §§i8 ff.). And finally, after Mantias' death, his own 
son is compelled to share his inheritance with these sons of 
Plango ( [Dem.] 40, 13 ff.). That the oath of a corrupt woman 
should thus have baffled the wishes of a father and overridden 
the unquestioned rights of the son with respect to his father's 
property, is not only astonishing, but is, apparently, wholly at 
variance with the spirit of the inheritance institutions. f 

Assuming that the child was permitted to live, we find, as 
Perrot has so clearly pointed out, that the father's power in all 
directions was greatly circumscribed, and that the laws of 
Solon guarded the rights of the son with the most jealous 

* The potency of the woman's oath, made under such circumstances, 
may perhaps be regarded as a survival from a primitive epoch, when 
women were dominant and when relationships were traced through 
them and not through men (see McLennan, Studies in Ancient His- 
tory — Primitive Marriage, Chap, viii, and Kinship in Ancient Greece; 
^Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 343 ff. ; Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht, 
passim. 

t It must be said, however, that these Demosthenic orations present 
serious difficulties and intricacies, and that there are divergencies of 
opinion among scholars as to the real facts in the case. It is by no 
means impossible — and some scholars hold this view — that Mantias 
had married Plango, and had subsequently divorced her {e. g. see 
Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities, App., p. 454). If we could 
absolutely prove that a marriage with Plango had taken place, it would 
be evident that the speaker in the orations in question had deliberately 
concealed important facts bearing upon the case, and had misrepre- 
sented the real situation. 



94 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

solicitude. Thus, Isaeus tells us that the Athe- 
The Son's nian father cannot give or bequeath his property 
Inheritance according to his pleasure, since the law gives 
Rights. the inheritance to the sons, who share in the 

property equally ;* and the father does not even 
mention the son in his will, since the son is the inevitable heir 
(Isae. lo, 9; 6, §§25, 28). So, also, when there are legiti- 
mate sons, the estate is not subject to legal controversy, and 
the sons do not have to claim their father's property by process 
of law; they simply take possession (Isae. 3, 59-60; cf. Der 
attische Process, pp. 665 ff.). Moreover, no one is likely to 
contest the son's claim to his inheritance f (Isae. 3, 61). 

* Sometimes, however, it would seem that brothers found it desirable 
to hold at least part of the inheritance in common (Lys. 32, 4; Aeschin. 
I, 102; [Dem.] 44, 10). Sometimes, again, on the death of a father, 
the eldest son seems to have assumed control of an estate, and to have 
become guardian of his younger brothers and sisters (Lys. 10, §§4, 5). 

t Wyse questions the accuracy of Isaeus' statement that no man with 
legitimate sons can give or bequeath his property to others (Or. 6, 28: 
6 vofioq avTog anodlduGL t(o vlel ra rov Trarpof Koi oiide diadecOai eg oto) av uai Tzaldeg 
yv7]aL0i.)\ and he cites several instances in which Athenian fathers 
appear to have left special legacies to members of their families, 
friends, or religious bodies {Commentary, pp. 325, 515). The first in- 
stance cited is that of a certain Pasion, a banker, who made a special 
bequest to his eldest son in recognition of the principle of primogeni- 
ture (Dem. 36, 34; cf. 39, 29). But this case is a doubtful one, as 
Wyse himself virtually acknowledges (p. 515) inasmuch as the will in 
question is declared to have been a forgery or invalid. Wyse also 
cites various instances in which Athenian fathers left money or prop- 
erty of considerable value to be used as dowries {e. g. Dem. 45, 28 ; 27, 
§§5 ff. ; Lys. 32, 6), and one instance in which the guardian was to 
have the income from a certain sum until his ward had attained his 
majority (Dem. 27, §§5 ff . ; 29, 43), apparently finding in these pas- 
sages evidence of untruthfulness on Isaeus' part, in his statements re- 
specting the rights of children. But it does not seem to have been an 
infringement of the rights of children to assign to the use of the 
guardian the income from a portion of the estate, any more than to 
permit the husband of the heiress to enjoy the usufruct of the inherit- 
ance during the son's minority (see Perrot, V Eloquence Politique et 
Judiciaire a Athenes, p. 376). And in my judgment, Wyse goes alto- 
gether too far in his spirit of hostility to Isaeus when he cites the 
giving of large dowries as an argument to disprove Isaeus' accuracy of 
statement. The dowry, as we have seen, was as well established as 
any Athenian institution, and had its own recognized place in the in- 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 95 

Again, the father could not control the disposition of his 
property, or show any preference, in case a son should be born 
to him after he had adopted a son, for the law gave the adopted 
son and the son by birth equal portions of the inheritance 

heritance system. Its recognition is so universal, in fact, that Greek 
writers doubtless thought it wholly unnecessary to state specifically that 
the Athenian father had a legal right to give a dowry. It is true that 
the bestowal of a dowry disproportionally large was considered detri- 
mental to the best interests of the State, as we have seen; but nowhere 
among Greek writers, will there be found, I think, even a hint that the 
giving of a dowry was thought to conflict with the inheritance rights 
of sons. To identify the dowry with any form of an ordinary bequest, 
as Wyse virtually does, and on this ground to attempt to impugn Isaeus' 
veracity, is manifestly unfair. Wyse also cites in support of this 
dissenting view, the case of the illustrious Conon, who is said to have 
dedicated a large sum of money to Athena and to Apollo at Delphi, 
and to have made special bequests to his nephew, his brother, and his 
son (Lys. 19, §§39, 40). But this gift to the deities was quite in accord 
with the spirit of the Athenian inheritance system, wherein, in all its 
ramifications, the obligations to religion and the State were paramount — 
a point upon which Wyse does not seem to me to dwell with sufficient 
emphasis. Possibly Conon, by virtue of these lavish gifts to the gods, 
felt that he would secure special dispensation from the courts with 
respect to the remainder of his bequest. And even were we to grant 
that this and the other instances mentioned were exceptions to the 
regular rule, still it would not necessarily militate against Isaeus in his 
enunciation of a general principle. But the difficulties noted by Wyse 
seem to have been satisfactorily explained many years ago in that 
admirable work, Der attische Process. Here the remark is made that 
an Athenian father could evidently, under certain circumstances, make 
a bequest in the form of a legacy to a relative or to a religious organi- 
zation, or could bestow upon a son or daughter a gift preliminary to 
the general distribution of the inheritance, without violating the law. 
" Such a bequest does not seem, it is true, to have been expressly 
authorized by law, but was evidently tolerated in practice, provided 
the inheritance rights of the children were not too seriously encroached 
upon" (Meier & Schomann, pp. 590-592). Wyse remarks with respect 
to these apparent deviations from the rule laid down by Isaeus : " The 
most probable explanation of this discrepancy is that the law .... 
was not enforced consistently, because society had outgrown the ideas 
and needs of the 6th century. The average Athenian regarded the 
name of Solon with superstitious reverence, but when called by the lot 
to the office of a judge, was not accustomed to apply the rule with 
conscientious severity, if in any case he thought it irksome or 
inequitable" (^Commentary, p. 325). 



96 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

(Isae. 6, 63). On the other hand, Demosthenes (20, 102) 
cites the law which permits a man without legitimate sons to 
dispose of his property by will as he chooses; Isaeus (2, 13; 
6, 9) also mentions the law, restricting its operation, however, 
according to the latter passage, to the man who is not mentally 
unsound or incapacitated by any other of the causes specified 
in the law. 

Among the chief duties of the son — whether the son by birth 
or by adoption — were the obligations, already discussed, to 
perpetuate the family line and the ancestor worship, and to 

discharge the family's indebtedness to the State. 
Duties of In a previous chapter reference was made to the 
the Son. law which made it obligatory upon the son to care 

for the parents during their lifetime and faithfully 
to perform all religious rites after the parents' death; and we 
may note that the law and public opinion required not merefy 
that the son should treat the parents and grandparents with 
consideration, shelter them, and support them, but that he 
should also bestow upon them the comforts of life, so far as 
lay in his power (Lys. 13, 91 ; Aeschin. i, 28; Aristoph. Birds, 
y^y\ Eur. Ale. 619 ff. ; Plato, Laws, 931 A D E). Isaeus 
states explicitly that the grandparents and even the great- 
grandparents must be cared for, even though they leave no 
property {Or. 8, 32) ; and that the penalties of the law and 
public odium would be visited upon the heirs who disregarded 
such obligations {Or. i, 39). A chapter from Xenophon's 
Memorabilia (2, 2) is exceedingly interesting as illustrating 
Socrates' keen appreciation of the debt of gratitude due from 
the son to the mother; and in one passage from the chapter 
(§13) we are informed that the State prosecutes the son who 
neglects his parents' support, and debars him from holding 
public office if he is found guilty, " on the ground that the 
sacrifices would not be offered in a due spirit of reverence on 
behalf of the State if this man officiated, and that he would 
perform no other act honorably and justly." 
Attitude of A person convicted of the maltreatment of 

the State w^ith parents was considered aVi/xo? to o-w/ia( An doc. 
regard to the i, 74) ; in other words, he was excluded 
Son's Duties. from the ayopa (Dem. 24, 63), and was pro- 
hibited from speaking in the Assembly 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 97 

(Aeschin. i, 28). Diogenes Laertius i, 55, says, fdv ns firf 
Tpe<f)ri Tovs yoviasy arifxos eara. We are told that onc of the ques- 
tions asked at the scrutiny of the nine archons was, " Do you 
treat your parents well ? " ('a^. Uo\, 55, 3 ; cf . Dem. 57, 70) , 
We also learn that the person prosecuting an unnatural son 
enjoyed special exemptions from the court {'aO.UoX, 56, 6; 
Harpoc. s.w. KOKtoais, claayy^Xia), It is evident, then, that 
filial devotion was generally regarded by the Athenians as one 
of their most sacred obligations ; thus, in the Supplices of Aes- 
chylus (vss. 707-709), we read: 

TO yap TiKovrav ae^as 
TpiTOV rod* ev Otap-iois 
AiKae yiypanrai pfyi(rTOTip,ov* 

It is also evident that neither public opinion nor law founded 
filial duty merely on the right of inheritance (see Xen. Mem. 
2f 2y 13 ff. ; Aeschin. i, 28 ; Plato, Laws, 931 A ff.). 

It cannot be denied that, theoretically considered, the Attic 
law made ample provision for the security and comfort of 
Athenian parents; but, unfortunately, we find that the obliga- 
tions of children to parents were not always met in a worthy 
spirit, and Aristophanes in particular gives us the impression 
that Athenian children were inclined to be mercenary and even 
heartless in their attitude toward the parents. In the Wasps 
(vss. 606 ff.), the old dicast tells of the affectionate greetings 
which he receives from the members of his family when he re- 
turns home with his fee ; " all welcome me on account of the 
money," he says (vss. 606-607) ; whereas, without the income 
derived from jury duty, he would be dependent upon his son 
for support, and apparently in danger of being poisoned by the 
son's steward (vs. 614). In the Ecclesiazusae, Blepyrus speaks 
of sons who throttle their fathers (vss. 639-640). In the 
Clouds, Pheidippides strikes his father (vss. 1321 ff.), and 
threatens even to strike his mother (vss. 1441 ff.). Of course, 
in considering the value of such passages as these, we must bear 
in mind Aristophanes' tendency to exaggerate; but even after 
making all due allowances, we can hardly deny that the pas- 
sages in question clearly show the spirit and tendency of the 
times. And our unpleasant impressions are deepened when 
we read of the tendency on the part of Athenian sons to bring 



98 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

action against aged fathers to remove the latter from the con- 
trol of their property and keep them in confinement, on the 
ground of mental weakness (see Clouds, 845; Xen. Mem. I, 2, 
49). The story told by Cicero of the action which the son of 
Sophocles instituted against his aged father — a story too well 
known to require repetition — sufficiently illustrates the practice 
referred to (see De Senec. §7; De Fin. 5, i). 

If sons were sometimes reluctant to support the parents, it 
is probable that grandsons viewed with even greater aversion 
the obligation to care for the aged grandparents, and regarded 
such an obligation as a grievous burden (see Isae. i, 40; cf. 
[Dem.] 44, 66). 

Under certain circumstances the son was not required to care 
for the parents. Thus, it is interesting to observe that accord- 
ing to Plutarch {Sol. 22), the son was not required to support 
the father, in case the latter had neglected to teach the son some 
useful art* (cf. Plato, Crito, 50 D; Isoc. 7, 45). Plutarch 
also informs us {Sol. 22) that the son of a halpa was not 
compelled to support his parents. Again, if the father had 
been the means of corrupting the son, the latter, on reaching 
maturity, was not obliged to support his father, or even to give 
him shelter. Nevertheless, — and here again the undercurrent 
of religious feeling is seen, — even such an unnatural father 
had the right to expect the son to bury him and perform the 
religious rites, as we have observed (Aeschin. i, 13) ; in short, 
it would seem that under no circumstances was the son per- 
mitted to ignore this sacred duty. 

Such were the relations existing between father and son; 
and in the preceding chapter certain of the relations between 
father and daughter have been noted incidentally. And, while 
it is true that the power of the Athenian over 
Father and his daughter fell far short of the patria potestas 
Daughter. of the Roman father, yet we find that in certain 
directions the Athenian father's authority was 
unquestioned ; as, for example, in matters relating to marriage, 
and in the power which the father possessed to sell into slavery 
a daughter who had been discovered to be guilty of unchastity 

* But, as Becker points out (Charicles, p. 85 note) this law was prob- 
ably ineffective. 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 99 

(see Plut. Sol. 23). Of course the obligations to religion and 
to the State determined, to a large extent, the father's attitude 
toward his daughter. With respect to the inheritance, we shall 
observe that the daughter's rights — limited though they were — 
were defined with reasonable clearness, for the most part. 

It has been seen that there was no question as to the dis- 
position of the property if a man left legitimate sons; that in 
this case the sons inherited equally, and that the law forbade 
the father to bequeath his property to any one else (Isae. 6, 
28). When there were sons and daughters the matter was 
equally clear; the sons inherited, and the property became 
theirs immediately, without process of law (Isae. 6, 46). 
When a father died, leaving a daughter, but no sons, the daugh- 
ter inherited, but in a peculiar manner. It has been stated that 
a man without legitimate sons could dispose his property by 
will according to his pleasure (Isae. 2, 13; 6, 9; Dem. 20, 102; 
[Dem.] 46, 14). We read, however, in Isaeus 3, 42: ovt€ yap 

BiaBcirdai ovre dovvai ov8(p\ ovdev e^ccrri rStv eavroii nvtv tuv 6vyaTep<aVy 
iav Tip KaTa\m<av yprjaiae r^Xevra. So, also, in IsaCUS 10, 1 3, the 

speaker asserts that a father who has no sons cannot make a 
will disinheriting his daughters. The broad statements cited 
above, therefore, to the effect that a man without sons, and 
otherwise qualified according to law, can dispose of his prop- 
erty by will according to his pleasure, necessarily refer to a 
man who has no daughters; and in Isaeus 3, 68, the speaker, 
after asserting that a man without legitimate sons can bequeath 

his property as he wishes, adds : av de drfX^ias KaraXinrj, <tvv ravrais. 
ovKovv fj.€Ta t3>v Ovyarepoiv can Bovvai koI biaQtaOai to uvtov. So, also, 

in the Demosthenic speech Against Makartatus (§51) — an in- 
teresting document — ^the law is cited at length, which corrobo- 
rates Isaeus' statement and clearly indicates that the in- 
heritance rights of the daughters cannot be ignored. With 
the daughters, then, the father can give or bequeath his prop- 
erty, but not irrespective of the daughters. The speaker in the 
oration of Isaeus, just cited (3, §§68, 69) goes on to say that 
if the father, ignoring a daughter, had adopted a son, the 
adoption would have been invalid ; that such an adopted son 
could succeed to the inheritance only by marrying the daughter 
(cf. §42; Id. 10, 13). In the same connection, we may cite a 



lOO THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

passage from Demosthenes (41, 3), according to which the 
father has two daughters, but no sons ; he thereupon adopts his 
wife's brother, and gives to the latter his younger daughter in 
marriage. 

It is evident, then, — as Schomann specifically points out, — 
that an Athenian having daughters, but no sons, was virtually 
under obligations to adopt a son, who in turn should be required 
to marry one of the daughters * {Antiquities of Greece, pp. 356- 
357) ; for only in this way could an Athenian, in many cases, 
be reasonably assured of an heir who should perpetuate the 
adoptive father's name and the family cult, and discharge the 
obligations to the State. It is not, therefore, surprising that 
failure on the part of the adopted son to marry the (rriKKijpos 
invalidated the will and the adoption, and placed it in the 
power of the next of kin to claim the heiress in marriage (see 
Wyse, Commentary, p. 334). And, on the other hand, by the 
marriage of the adopted son and the daughter, in conformity 
with the father's wishes, and in accordance with the require- 
ments of the inheritance laws, the woman immediately ceased 
to be an eViKXi^por, and all the rights and responsibilities of the 
heir were legally vested in her husband. 

It is obvious that the relations of an Athenian to his daugh- 
ters, his sons-in-law, and his grandsons varied greatly, accord- 
ing to whether his daughter was an fViKXi^pos-, or whether she 
had a brother or brothers living who should themselves suc- 
ceed to the inheritance. If an Athenian had sons and daugh- 
ters, and had given his daughters in marriage to men outside 
the family, his relations to his daughters and their children 
would, theoretically, be purely those of affection; neither his 
daughters nor their children would necessarily have material 
interests in his property, nor would they observe the same 
domestic cult which he himself celebrated. If, on the other 
hand, an Athenian had a daughter, but no sons, and adopted a 

* Wyse thinks that an Athenian father might, if he chose, bequeath 
his daughter and his estate to a man who was not adopted (cf. Aristoph. 
Wasps, 583). "In this case," Wyse remarks (Commentary, pp. 329, 
330), "the daughter would be the lirUTiripoc in the strictest sense, and 
her son or sons, on attaining their majority, would enter into possession 
of the property," 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN lOl 

son who was to marry the daughter, the latter, her husband, 
and her children, would all be members of the same house — 
the oiKos of which the woman's father was the duly authorized 
head — and would be interested in the same domestic cult and 
in the same inheritance obligations. And the relations of the 
Athenian to this son-in-law would be peculiarly intimate, since 
the son-in-law was also the adopted son, and the lawful heir of 
the father-in-law. So, too, the grandsons would doubtless be 
viewed with particular favor, as the ultimate, heirs of the 
inheritance. 

A painful impression of the relations which might sometimes 
arise between an Athenian, on the one hand, and his daughter 
and her children, on the other hand, is gained by a perusal of 
the 32d oration of Lysias. Diodotus, an Athenian citizen, had 
married the daughter of his brother Diogeiton, and had two 
sons and a daughter. After some years, leaving his wife and 
children in his brother's charge, Diodotus engaged in military 
service, and eventually died abroad. Before his departure, 
Diodotus had made a will, formally appointing his brother 
guardian of his family, and leaving his property in his brother's 
hands, to be held in trust for his wife and children, in case of 
his own death (§§4 if.). The brother Diogeiton, however, 
shamefully abused his trust ; he appropriated most of the estate 
to his own use, defrauded his daughter of part of her husband's 
property, and grossly neglected her children, finally turning his 
eldest grandson adrift to shift for himself, and asserting that 
he had now expended for the support of his grandchildren 
more than the amount left for them by their father (§§8 if.). 
It then became necessary for the unfortunate woman — Diogei- 
ton's own daughter — and her children, to resort to law, in order 
to compel the unnatural Diogeiton to restore the property 
which was rightfully their own. The heartlessness of Diogei- 
ton, and his brutal treatment of his own daughter and her 
children, is amazing; he deliberately undertakes to disinherit 
his grandsons (§§12-18). Perhaps it would be unfair to re- 
gard this as a typical case ; and it certainly would be as un- 
reasonable to base our estimates of Athenian family life solely 
on the records of the law courts as it would be to judge modern 
society in the same manner. Nevertheless, this mournful nar- 



102 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

rative indicates a deplorable lack of honesty and integrity — to 
say nothing of an absence of all natural affection — on the part 
of a representative Athenian citizen. 

Returning now to a consideration of the position of the 
enUXrjpos and her children, I desire again to quote Perrot, as his 
insight is especially clear and his mode of expression most 
happy. He says of the heiress who, after her father's death, 
had married her nearest male relative : " The inheritance was 

not transmitted to the daughter, but with 
The " Heiress " the daughter. It did not belong to the 
and her Son. woman, who, held in a perpetual state of 

legal incapacity, was disqualified to possess 
it. It belonged still less to the husband, who was a member of 
another family, and celebrated another domestic cult." The 
husband, then, was the guardian or trustee, having only the 
usufruct of the estate during his child's minority (see Wyse, 
Commentary, pp. 352, 515), and the estate was held in trust 
for the son born from this marriage. " When this son had at- 
tained to his majority," continues Perrot, " he left his father's 
house, and, although his father and mother were still living, 
he took possession of the estate of his maternal grandfather '* 
{U Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes, pp. 371 ff.). 
Passages from the orators fully corroborate these observations 
of Perrot's (Isae. 8, 31; 10, 12; 3, §§50, 73; Frag. 18, 25; 
[Dem.] 43, §§12, yy ff. ; 46, 20) ; and we observe that the son 
of the eniK\r]pos, after having been received by adoption into his 
grandfather's family, as its representative, became his mother's 
custodian, even though his father were still living.* We ob- 
serve also that the fTrUXrjpos was not, strictly speaking, an heir- 
ess, according to our understanding of the word; as Perrot 
suggests above, the word signified to the Athenian, " she who 
accompanies an inheritance " ; or, as Jevons literally renders the 
word, she who was " on the estate " (Manual of Greek Antiqui- 
ties, p. 543) . She did not inherit independently, as the son did ; 
she was, as Wyse expresses it, " only the intermediary by whom 
the estate is transmitted to a male of the same blood as her 
father " {Commentary, p. 609 ; cf . Der attische Process, pp. 575- 
576). Her peculiar position, as merely an instrument or a 

*This, however, is disputed by some scholars (see Wyse, p. 667). 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 103 

piece of machinery in the inheritance system, is illustrated by 
the extraordinary custom — noted in the previous chapter — of 
sometimes requiring an Athenian married woman who had be- 
come an heiress through the death of a brother, to separate 
from her husband and marry the next of kin. If this ever 
actually took place, — and Isaeus, it will be remembered, de- 
clares emphatically that it did, — the woman's children by her 
second marriage would, of course, succeed eventually to their 
maternal grandfather's estate, displacing their parents in the 
possession of the property on reaching maturity; for in this 
manner, the Athenian reasoned, the family lines would best be 
preserved. On the other hand, any children of the woman by 
her former marriage would have no inheritance rights to their 
grandfather's property, since their father was either unrelated 
by blood to their mother,* or was more remotely related than 
their mother's second husband (cf. Wyse, Commentary, p. 
450). 

* In connection with the subject of the kniKlrjpog and her sons, we are 
confronted by the problem as to whether all the sons of the kTziKkrjpoq 
had equal inheritance rights in the property of their maternal grand- 
father, or whether the grandson who had been formally adopted into 
his grandfather's (^paTpia gained thereby exclusive rights to the grand- 
father's sacra and to the inheritance. Wyse discusses this problem as 
exemplified in the case of one Sositheus and his sons, recorded by 
Pseudo-Demosthenes in the 43d oration. Wyse says of Sositheus : 
" At the time of the trial he and his wife, Phylomache, daughter of 
Eubulides, had four sons. The eldest son, Sosias, had come of age 
and was a member of his father's (pparpia. The 2d son was a minor, 
and had recently been enrolled in the t^parpia of Eubulides as son of 
Eubulides. The 3d and 4th sons, also minors, were presumably in 
their father's pparpia. The adoption (^eKiroirjaig) made the 2d son heir 
of the sacra, and representative of the house of his maternal grand- 
father. Did it also have the effect of transmitting to him the succes- 
sion to the whole of his grandfather's property? .... Or did each of 
his three brothers retain a right to an equal share, although they were 
not members of Eubulides' (pparpia, and were not considered sons of 
Eubulides? No clear answer can be given to these questions. Part of 
the law on the subject is preserved in (Dem.) 46, 20, Kal kav k^ kmiiX^pov 
Ttg yivrjTai^ Kal afia rj^rja'^ knl (Ji'eref , KpaTtlv Tciv xPVfJ-^'^'^^-, ^^v 6e alrov fierpelv 
rif fiTjTpL These words admit the possibility that the first son born to 
the ktrlK'kTjpoQ had an exclusive right to the succession of his maternal 
grandfather, whereas Isaeus' interpretation of the law excludes it; for 
in three passages he speaks in the plural of the children of the kniKkripo^. 



I04 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

It is evident that the position of the Athenian daughter, and 
particularly that of the imKXrjpos, was exceedingly perilous, and 
it is unfortunate that the orators, and especially Isaeus, have 
not defined her rights with absolute clearness. Isaeus, it is 
true, states emphatically that the legitimate daughter should 
not claim her inheritance by an award of the court, but should 
enter upon the possession of her patrimony like a legitimate 
son; that, furthermore, if any one attempts to rob her of any 
of it, he is subject to private action and public prosecution, is 
likely to lose his property, and even brings himself into per- 
sonal peril (3, §§59-62). It will be observed that in this pas- 
sage the rights of sons and daughters are nearly, if not wholly, 
identified. But in the succeeding passage (3, ^^6^ flf.) the 
speaker maintains that the same daughter, if legitimate, could 
be claimed in marriage by the next of kin, in the order of 
intestate succession; that is to say, that her position was not 
identical with that of the son, since she was not the independent 



as if all sons inherited without any distinction; see VIII, 31, . . . X, 
12, ... . Fr. 90 Sauppe .... Nowhere in our existing authorities 
is transference to the house of the maternal grandfather made a con- 
dition of receiving the estate, nowhere do we read of any privilege 
accruing to the son who leaves his father's family in order to maintain 
the continuity of the house of his mother's father. Yet in spite of this 
silence it is difficult to believe that a son selected to discharge this 
duty was placed in a worse position than his brothers, as he would have 
been, if he could only claim lawfully his quota of the grandfather's 
property, since the adoption broke the bonds which connected him with 
his father and deprived him of all rights in his father's estate. The 
analogies found in Hindoo and Jewish customs support the hypothesis 
that the son who was transferred took over both the cult and the 
wealth of his grandfather. . . . Now it is certain that the laws of Solon 
did not agree in detail with the regulations attributed to Moses and 
Manu, but it is also plain that the motive which originally inspired 
all these rules was one and the same, the desire to enable a father who 
had only a daughter to make himself a son by means of a legal and 
religious fiction, and so secure a successor. ... I am not prepared to 
accept .... the conclusions reached by Hruza (I, p. 91, n. 7) that at 
Athens in the 4th century adoption into the house of the father of the 
£7riK/\77pof was not only not a condition of inheriting the estate, but 
actually gave the adopted son no advantages over his brothers who 
remained in the family of their father {Commentary, pp. 360-362). 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 105 

heir and owner of the property (as we have seen), but was 
herself inherited as an accompaniment of the estate. Thus 
we are impressed anew by the thought that all the safeguards 
which were thrown about the inheritance and the heiress were 
created, not for the ultimate benefit of the woman herself, but 
for her child — the grandson of the original possessor of the 
property. And it will be observed that all these arrangements 
were strictly in accord with the principles of inheritance law, 
which insisted so strenuously that the property be kept within 
the family, by reason of the obligations to religion and the 
State; for only in this manner, the Athenians reasoned, could 
the largest benefits accrue to the State, and consequently to the 
family and the individual; and since, as Perrot has indicated, 
neither the " heiress " nor her husband were qualified to pos- 
sess the inheritance for themselves and discharge the obliga- 
tions entailed, therefore the son of the enUXrjpos was the inev- 
itable heir (cf. Schomann, Antiquities of Greece, p. 356). It 
is not strange, then, that special ordinances were established 
for the benefit of the heiress (cf. 'a^. Uo\. 56, 6; Poll. 8, 53; 
Dem. 37, 45), who was considered to be under the special pro- 
tection of the State (see Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, 
P- 357) J ^i^d whose interests the archon was required to protect 
( [Dem.] 43, 75) ; for it was always to the interest of the State 
that the hereditary public services of a distinguished family 
should be perpetuated by the son of the heiress, and his 
successors. 

In connection with the subject of the rights of parents and 
children, the question of disinheritance demands at least a 
passing glance. The subject is a difficult one, however, and is 
attended by much uncertainty; and even the exact interpreta- 
tion of the word anoKripv^ai is disputed. The older authors, as 

Meier & Schomann point out (Der attische 
Disinheritance. Process, pp. 535 ff.), shed no light on the 

subject; and the scattering observations of 
later writers are inconclusive and somewhat contradictory. 
Plato {Laws, 928 D ff.) would permit a father to disinherit 
his son only after the step had been approved by a family coun- 
cil. Meier & Schomann (p. 537) think that at Athens the son 
could be formally repudiated only by the authority of the court. 



I06 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2, 26) testifies that, according to 
the legislation of Solon, a father had the authority to repudiate 
a disobedient son. Lucian's work, entitled ^hiroKYipvirToynvosy 
because of its fictitious character sheds no clear light on the 
subject. The tradition that the father of Themistocles repudi- 
ated his ungovernable son (Nep. Them, i; Val. Max. 6, 9) is 
declared by Plutarch to be untrue {Them. 2). Meier & 
Schomann think it probable that the son who had been re- 
moved from his father's house retained his rights as a citizen 
and as a member of a family, but that the peculiarly close 
relations existing between father and son, especially as regards 
inheritance rights, entirely ceased {Der attische Process, p. 
538). Jevons cites a passage from Aristotle {Nic, Eth. 8, 14, 
4), which seems to indicate that even though the power of 
disinheriting a son might exist theoretically, yet it was im- 
possible to think that such a power was actually exercised; 
and the same critic concludes that the practice of disinheritance 
was practically non-existent; and that, even though the right 
was occasionally exerted, yet it " could only be exercised under 
such circumstances as the law considered to justify the pro- 
ceeding " (Manual of Greek Antiquities, p. 557). 

The rights of legitimate children, whether sons or daugh- 
ters, were, in the main, defined with reasonable clearness. As 

to what constituted legitimacy, we may note that 
Legitimate Pollux (3, 21) defines the yvriaios as one born of 
Children. a woman who was a citizen of Athens and a duly 

wedded wife. In Pseudo-Demosthenes (46, 18) 
a law is cited which defines the conditions under which the 
Athenian woman whose children are to be regarded as yvrjaioiy 
is to be betrothed in marriage : 'Hv av eyyv^trrj eVl diKolois Safiapra 

(ivai t] TTaTTjp rj adeXcfyos 6p.oiraru>p 17 ttclttttos 6 jrpop iraTpos^ €K ravTrjs 

tlvai naiBas yvrj^riovs, (Cf. [Dem.] 44, 49.) We thus observc 
that those sons and daughters were held to be legitimate who 
were born of Athenian women duly betrothed and given in 
marriage by their properly authorized guardians, — whether 
father, brother, or grandfather, — in accordance with the re- 
quirements of law. We have seen that, in a lawful marriage, 
it was required that both husband and wife be citizens of 
Athens (cf. [Dem.] 59, §§i6, 17; Plut. PericL 37); and we 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 



107 



have had occasion to refer in particular to passages from 
Isaeus (see 8, 19; 7, §§15, 16; 12, 9), in which the father 
makes oath, when presenting his son by birth or adoption to 
the members of his phratry, that the boy was born of a duly 
wedded wife who was a citizen of Athens (i^ aar^s Ka\ ya/xcr^s 
yvvaiKoi), — a ceremony which was important as an evidence of 
the child's legitimacy, but apparently regulated by the custom 
of the particular phratry or deme rather than required by the 
law of the land (see Jevons, Manual of Greek Antiquities, pp. 

451. 551-552). 

Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were regarded with 
disfavor, since, under the influence of the religious idea, the birth 
of such a child was looked upon as polluting the city and pro- 
faning the family altars. As to the definition of the word v66ost 
we may note that Athenaeus (13, 577, 38) 
Illegitimate speaks of the law which defines the v6Qos as 
Children. one born of a woman not a citizen ; while Pollux 

(3, 21) defines a v66oi as the child of an alien 
woman or a concubine. It is evident, however, that these 
definitions are inadequate. Zimmermann {De Nothorum Athe- 
nis Condicione, pp. 5, 7) remarks that besides the definitions of 
v66oi ordinarily accepted by scholars, namely, children born 
out of wedlock of Athenian parents, or children whose father 
was an Athenian citizen, but whose mother was an alien or a 
concubine, — that, in addition to these, the classes of v66oi in- 
cluded children whose mother was an Athenian citizen but 
whose father was a foreigner or a slave, and children born in 
concubinage of an Athenian father and a slave woman.* 

Legislation regulating the status of the voBoi was enacted by 
Solon, according to whose measures all rights of inheritance 
were denied to illegitimate children. This is shown in a pas- 
sage from the Birds of Aristophanes, wherein Heracles is dis- 

* Zimmermann {op. cit. p. 7) adds to the above definitions of vodoc 
the following, which I give in the writer's words, without comment: 
" Praeter hos nothos concubinatu procreatos fuit alterum Athenis 
nothorum genus, eos dico liberos, qui ex iusto matrimonio prodierunt 
a cive Attico cum peregrina muliere, cui connubium non erat, inito, 
cuius generis exemplum Plutarchus in vita Themistoclis .... praebet." 



Io8 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

tinctly told by Peithetaerus that he has no inheritance rights 
whatever, because he is a i/o^os and not a yvf^mos (vss. 1649- 
1650) ; that he is excluded not only by Athena the heiress (cf. 
Suid. s, V. eniKXripos'), but also by Poseidon the legitimate brother 
of Zeus (vss. 1652 ff.). The speaker then cites the law of 
Solon applying in the case of Heracles (vss. 1660 ff.) : 

€pS> de 8fj Ka\ Tov 2o\a)voy trot vo/iov' 
N66(p de fif) eivai ay;^ioTetai/, Traidiop ovt<ov 
yvrjcrlatv . tav be naiSes fxr} Sxri yvrjoioij rots 
eyyvraroi yevovs fiereivai tcop )(pr]fiaTa>v» 

That this regulation was in force in the times of the orators is 
conclusively shown in a passage from Pseudo-Demosthenes 
(43, 51), and in one from Isaeus (6, 47) ; the latter passage 

reads as follows ; TovvuvtIov toIvw arvfi^e^rjKCV T] ci>s 6 vofios yeypanTai' 
cx€t fxep yap eari voOco firjde voOrj eivai ay)(i.cmlav prjB Upoop prjO 6ala>p an 

EvKXeidov apxopros. These passages make it clear that illegitimate 
children were not only not permitted to inherit property, but 
that they were prohibited from participating in rehgious ob- 
servances. And, indeed, the expression to. re lepa Ka\ to. oaia — 
sacra profanaque — is broad enough, as Wyse points out (Com- 
mentary, p. 535), to include all the rights of a citizen (Dem. 
23, 65; [Dem.] 55, 104) ; but when used by Isaeus in connec- 
tion with dyxKTTelay Undoubtedly refers to the family worship 
and the inheritance only (Isae. 9, 13 ; Dem. 39, 35). 

It seems reasonably clear, therefore, that illegitimate chil- 
dren of all classes, from the time of Solon to the close of the 
period of the orators, were excluded from inheritance rights — 
with the exception of the po6e7a'\ — and the right to participate 
in religious observances. Although such children may have 

* In regard to certain difficulties of interpretation in the latter part of 
the passage cited, see Wyse, Commentary, p. 535. 

t Although the vodoc was placed at a tremendous disadvantage as 
compared with a legitimate son, — the yv^aiocy — ^yet the former was not 
necessarily left destitute. We learn that an Athenian father, although 
forbidden by law to transmit an inheritance to an illegitimate son, could 
nevertheless leave to such a son an amount sufficient for his support — 
the vodela. The amount of such a bequest was limited by law to 500 
or 1000 drachmae — ^both amounts are given (see Harpoc. and Suid. s. v. 
vodela', cf. Schol. Aristoph. Birds, 1656). 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 



109 



been recognized as belonging to their mother's tribe, and may 
eventually have been admitted to her deme, yet they could not 
properly be introduced into their father's phratry,* because, as 
Gilbert observes, " the father could not take the necessary oath 
that the child was born of a free Athenian woman betrothed 
to him by eyyui^ort?" {Greek Constitutional Antiquities, pp. 190- 
191). Moreover, it would certainly have been a gross impro- 
priety to admit to the sacred observances children of the class 
mentioned, even though they were of pure Athenian blood, in 
view of the dominating influence of the religious idea in the 
inheritance system. 

* Although the evidence at our disposal seems clearly to show that 
illegitimate children, during the times of the orators, were rigidly 
excluded from inheritance rights and religious observances, yet there 
is one passage, at least, which to some scholars seems to indicate that 
an illegitimate son could be introduced into his father's (ppnrpia, and 
thereby rendered legitimate. This passage is found in Isaeus 6th oration 
(§§i8 ff.), and has already been discussed and referred to in other 
connections. It will be remembered that, according to this narrative, 
an aged man, Euctemon by name, infatuated with a freed-woman of 
low character, named Alke, deserted his own family and undertook 
to introduce one of the woman's sons into his phratry, under his 
own name; that his own son, Philoctemon, protested, and for a 
time prevented his father from accomplishing his purpose, but event- 
ually acquiesced, in order to avoid worse complications and further 
scandals; whereupon Alke's son was duly enrolled. A number of 
eminent authorities look upon this narrative as affording evidence 
that an Athenian father, by thus introducing an illegitimate son into 
his (pparpla, could confer a son's full rights and privileges upon him. 
Among these authorities are the authors of Der attische Process (p. 
532), Schomann in his Commentary on Isaeus (p. 336), Zimmermann 
(op. cit. pp. 9, 10), and Thalheim-Hermann {Griechischen Rechts- 
altertiimer, p. 8). But the narrative involves peculiar difficulties; for, 
briefly stated, such an act on the part of an Athenian father would have 
been a deliberate violation of the principles of inheritance law, and a 
gross infringement upon the son's rights. In view of these considera- 
tions, and of the orator's silence with respect to certain important points 
in the case, — to say nothing of obscurities and inconsistencies in the 
speech (see Wyse's introduction and analysis of the oration, and his 
criticisms on §§17 ff.), — I am disinclined to accept the conclusion 
reached by the authorities named, and I prefer to adopt the view of 
Wyse (Commentary, pp. 483 ff.) and Miiller {op. cit'. pp. 711 ff.), that 
Isaeus' 6th oration affords no conclusive proof of the correctness of the 
theory in question. 



no THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

The question of the poHtical status of the voBoi during the 
Age of Pericles and the period of the orators constitutes a far 
more perplexing problem than the question of their inheritance 
rights. In general, it may be said that most authorities con- 
sider that the v66oi did not enjoy the rights of citizenship, 
although there is a division of opinion among scholars as to 
whether it was a law of Solon or of Pericles that denied the 
voBoi such rights (see Zimmermann, De Nothorum Athenis 
Condicione, pp. 3, 2y). Schomann {Antiquities of Greece, pp. 
357, 358) thinks that Pericles merely restored a law of Solon, 
which, with the lapse of time, had fallen into disuse, and which 
excluded from the rights of citizenship the sons and daughters 
of Athenian fathers and non-citizen mothers. " But soon 
after," continues Schomann, " it again fell into desuetude, and 
hence was renewed by Aristophon in the year 403, after the 
overthrow of the Thirty. It was now, however, less sweeping 
than before, inasmuch as the citizenship possessed by sons of 
a non-citizen mother was not withdrawn from them, but it 
was only enacted that for the future those born of such 
mothers after the Archonship of Eucleides {i. e. after the year 
403) should be excluded " * {op. cit. p. 358 ; cf. Andoc. i, §§83, 
87; Athen. 13, 577, 38; Dem. 57, 30; Isae. 8, 43; Gilbert, op, 
cit. p. 187; Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 43, 44). 

Schomann {op. cit. p. 357) draws a line of demarcation be- 
tween those v63oi " who had a citizen father, but a foreign 
mother not endowed with Epigamia, and those who had, as 
their mother, an Athenian woman indeed, but one who was 
living with the father in a connection not recognized by the 
law." . . . . " The former class," Schomann observes, " are 
said .... to have possessed the rights of citizens in earlier 
times, until a law of Pericles .... took these from them. 
.... As to the condition of those whose mother was a citizen 
but their father a foreigner not endowed with Epigamia, we 

* Zimmermann (op. cit. pp. 44, 45 ff.) calls attention to the fact that 
prior to 403 many eminent Athenians had married foreign women, and 
also that certain Athenians, afterwards distinguished for their services 
to the State, had been born prior to 403, of foreign mothers. This 
would indicate that, during the Sth century, vodoi of the class indicated 
were regarded with indulgence, and that in certain instances such 
vodoi probably enjoyed the rights of citizenship. 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN HI 

have no information from our authorities. The case certainly 
was of very rare occurrence. We must assume that such chil- 
dren followed the status of the father, and were consequently 
non-citizens. . . . But the question whether, when a citizen 
woman had formed a connection with a slave, her children were 
also slaves, we leave undiscussed" {Ihid. p. 358). 

The trend of later legislation with respect to the political 
status of the v66oi, and the condition of certain classes of the 
latter during the 4th century B. C, is summarized by Gilbert 
as follows {op. cit. p. 188) : " In the course of the 4th Cen- 
tury these enactments about the franchise were made still more 
severe by the absolute prohibition of mixed marriages both 
between citizens and alien women, and also between aliens and 
Athenian women ; if the law was broken, the alien offenders 
were to be sold into slavery. These rigorous laws, however, 
do not seem to have been strictly carried out ; at any rate they 
failed to exclude the half-bloods from citizen-rights in prac- 
tice. The foisting of their names into the burgess-rolls re- 
mained a busy and successful trade, as is clearly proved by the 
^ia\l/T](f>i(ris or revision of lists carried out in 346-5 B. C, when 
many such intruders were rejected from the burgess-body." 

The political status of illegitimate children of Athenian 
parentage during the 4th century constitutes an exceedingly 
perplexing problem. No direct and explicit statement bearing 
upon this theme is to be found in our ancient authorities. The 
majority of scholars now entertain the belief that such illegiti- 
mate children were admitted to the citizenship, on the ground 
that their Athenian parentage entitled them to the privilege not 
enjoyed by the offspring of Athenians and aliens. Prominent 
among scholars who hold this view are Meier & Schomann 
(Der attische Process, pp. 439, 533), Thumser-Hermann, 
(Griechischen Staatsaltertumer, p. 449), Gilbert {op. cit. pp. 
190-191), and Hruza {op. cit. 11 p. 89). But Zimmermann 
{op. cit. pp. 2y ^.), Miiller {op. cit. pp. 732 ff.), and Buermann 
{op. cit. pp. 635 ff.) take the opposite view. It is unprofitable 
to invoke, in this connection, the 3d oration of Isaeus, as afford- 
ing conclusive evidence that v66oi of the class mentioned were 
admitted to citizenship, because, in general, the oration is 



112 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

marred by obscurities and inconsistencies (see Wyse's analysis 
and introduction, pp. 273 ff.). Moreover, Wyse has shown in 
an elaborate discussion that a much-quoted passage from the 

Adr}vaia)v HoXirela, 42, beginning, ^trexovaiv fxfv rrjs noXiTfias ol e^ 

nn<})oT€pa)v yeyopores aarSiv .... cannot be regarded as proving" defi- 
nitely that the podoi " whose political status was in dispute, 
were admitted to a deme, and, consequently, to the citizenship " 
(op. cit. pp. 280 ff.). The problem, therefore, appears to be 
insoluble. 

A remarkable phenomenon of Attic law is presented to us 
in the oration of Isaeus entitled On the Estate of Hagnias. 

Here we observe that the mother of 
No Legal Affinity Hagnias was one of the claimants of the 
between Mother inheritance, first, on the general ground 

and Son. of kinship, and again, on the particular 

ground of being the mother of the de- 
ceased (see §§i6, 17, 21) ; but she was unsuccessful, and in 
connection with her second claim Isaeus remarks (§17), that 
the mother, although most closely related to her son by blood, 
did not possess the right of inheriting his property ;* as Isaeus 

* McLennan, in his work entitled Primitive Marriage (see Studies in 
Ancient History, pp. 209 ff,), comments upon the remarkable doctrine 
that there was " no affinity between mother and child " from the point 
of view of the Attic law, and thinks that this view received " its ear- 
liest and best expression in the Eumenides of Aeschylus, who dis- 
tinctly represents it as a new doctrine." " The plea which succeeds in 
the trial of Orestes," continues McLennan, " is that he was not of kin 
to his mother Clytemnestra. . . . The jury are equally divided on the 
plea, and Orestes gains his cause by the casting vote of Athene." 

" The basis of the suit is the claim of the Erinnyes to the right of 
punishing matricides. This was their function, by special ordination, 
as representing a time when kinship through the mother was unques- 
tioned. The claim is disputed. Would they, asks Orestes, drive from 
his home the slayer of a wife, that had killed her husband? The 
Erinnyes answer : 

' That would not be kindred blood shed by the hand of a relative.' 

* What,' asks Orestes, ' do you call me related by blood to my 
mother ' ? ' " 

" On this they open upon him with reproaches. . . . They are shocked 
at his impiety; and their horror increases on discovering that he is 
not alone in holding the new view — that it is adopted by the gods." . . . 



PARENTS AND CHILDREN 



113 



expresses it, 6 avyyfVf ararov fifP rjv rrj (f)v(T€i iravTOiv, tv 8e rals ay^i- 
(TTfiais ofxoXoyovfievas ovk ecrrip. 

With a few observations on the attitude of the ancient 
Greeks toward the stepmother this chapter will be concluded. 

In a striking passage from the Alcestis of 
The Stepmother. Euripides (vss. 304 ff.) the dying heroine 

implores her husband not to wed again 
after her death, and expresses the fear that a stepmother would 
treat the children with cruelty. She adds (vss. 309-310) : 



" On judgment being pronounced against them," continues McLen- 
nan in his discussion of the play (p. 212), "the Erinnyes are plunged 
in despair. ... * Ye younger gods, ye have overriden the old laws and 
have taken him out of my hands.' " 

"The lamentation and wail of dishonor are afterwards repeated with 
outcries which farther fix the attention on the fact that the new doc- 
trine was subversive of old beliefs." 

McLennan argues that the views of kinship found in this play were 
those which prevailed in the time of Aeschylus, not of Orestes (p. 
213). He remarks: "The solemn adjudication in the Eumenides 
that there is no kinship between mother and child, and the acquittal 
on that ground of Orestes, seems to me in remarkable contrast to the 
Homeric account of Epicaste (Hom. Odys. xi, 271)." 

* Wyse is reluctant to accept the principle so clearly laid down by 
Isaeus, and concludes, although without sufficient reason, I think, that 
the orator is inconsistent and untruthful, and that he has suppressed 
important facts bearing upon the situation {Commentary, pp. 673, 674, 
692 ff.). But I cannot see that an advocate should be censured and 
accused of duplicity because he does not emphasize facts or theories 
detrimental to his client's case. Wyse also regards another passage 
from the same speech (§30) as apparently contradicting the principle 
above mentioned. The passage is perplexing, to be sure; for the 
speaker, discussing the rights of succession, seems to rank the mother 
among the kinsfolk on the mother's side, while at the same time main- 
taining that her sons, the brothers of the deceased, had a prior right 
to the inheritance. Schomann in his Commentary on Isaeus explains 
the apparent discrepancy between the two passages by suggesting that 
the speaker is momentarily changing his point of view, in thinking of 
the woman's relationship; that is to say, he is regarding her not as 
the mother of Hagnias, but as a cousin on the father's side. Sir 
William Jones, who takes a similar view, says of the mother of Hagnias : 
" She bore a double relation to Hagnias both as his mother and his 
second cousin; for she was the sister of Stratius, and the soror con- 
sanguinea of Theopompus, himself " (Works, Vol. iv, p. 218). 



114 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

ix^pa yap rj Tnovtra firjTpvia tckvois, 
Tois irpoaB , e)(idvrjs ovdev ■qtriaripa. 

In the Ion of Euripides (vs. 1025) occur the words, ^Bovtiv ydp 
<f)aai ptrjTpvias t€kpois. Hesiod in his Works and Days character- 
izes lucky and unlucky days as firjr^pes and /ijjrpviat respect- 
ively (vs. 823) ; and Aeschylus in his Prometheus Vinctus (vs. 
727) speaks of the dangerous rocky coast of Salmydessus as 
nrjTpvia v€a>v. Jcrram in his edition of the Alcestis, in comment- 
ing on line 305, says : " In an epigram of Callimachus we are 
told how a boy went to place a garland on his stepmother's 
tomb, which fell upon him and crushed him." . . . These cita- 
tions will sufficiently illustrate the unfriendly manner in which 
the stepmother was regarded by the ancient Greeks. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The Adopted Son and his Relations to his Adoptive 

Father. 

Before entering upon a detailed discussion of the relations 
existing between adoptive parents and their adopted children, 
it seems appropriate to point out an important difference be- 
tween the family of ancient times, as conceived and consti- 
tuted,* and the family of to-day, — a difference resulting from 

the widely prevalent custom of adoption 
Difference between among ancient peoples. Maine, Ancient 
the Ancient and Law (pp. 133-134), says: "The fam- 

the Modern Family, ily . . . . is the type of an archaic so- 
ciety in all the modifications which it 
was capable of assuming ; but the family here spoken of is not 
exactly the family as understood by a modern. In order to 
reach the ancient ideas we must give to our modem ideas an 
important extension and an important limitation. We must 
look on the family as constantly enlarged by the absorption of 
strangers within its circle, and we must try to regard the 
fiction of adoption as so closely simulating kinship that neither 
law nor kinship make the slightest difference between a real 
and an adoptive connexion. . . . The persons .... amalga- 
mated into a family by their common descent are practically 
held together by common obedience to their highest living 
ascendant, the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather; . . . 
and .... we must understand that if there be any persons 

*The writer does not consider it within the province of this disser- 
tation to enter upon the general question of slavery among the Athe- 
nians, or to discuss in particular the relations of master and slave, 
notwithstanding Aristotle's well-known conception of the family as 
being formed by nature, not only by the union of husband and wife, 
but also of master and slave (Pol. i, 2, 2-5). In treating of the funda- 
mental consituents of the family, Aristotle discusses the subject with 
reference to the relations (i) of master and slave, (2) of husband and 
wife, (3) of father and child (Pol. i, 3, i ff.)- 



Il6 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

who, however truly included in the brotherhood by virtue of 
their blood-relationship, have nevertheless de facto withdrawn 
themselves from the empire of the ruler, they are always, in 
the beginnings of law, considered as lost to the family. It is 
this patriarchal aggregate — the modern family thus cut down 
on one side and extended on the other — which meets us on the 
threshold of primitive jurisprudence." 

With regard to the antiquity and importance of the institu- 
tion of adoption, Maine also remarks {Ihid. pp. 130-131) : 
" The earliest and most extensively employed of legal fictions 
was that which permitted family relations to be created arti- 
ficially, and there is none to which I conceive mankind to be 
more deeply indebted. If it had never existed, I do not see 
how any one of the primitive groups, what- 
The Beneficent ever were their nature, could have absorbed 
Influence of another, or on what terms any two of them 

Adoption. could have combined, except those of abso- 

lute superiority on one side and absolute 
subjection on the other." Our authority also presents the 
interesting view that the institution of adoption imparted ele- 
ments of permanence and solidity to ancient families and early 
societies. And when we consider that the patriarchal or family 
group undoubtedly constituted the unit of antique society (see 
Maine, op. cit. pp. 183-185, 126; McLennan, Studies in Ancient 
History — Primitive Marriage, pp. 88 if.) and that each group 
became virtually an undying corporation, we realize afresh the 
immense influence exerted by the institution of adoption. 

When we consider in detail the status of the adopted son, we 
immediately note a striking contrast between Rome and Athens 
with respect to the methods and character of adoption. Perrot 
admirably brings out this difference, when he says : " Adoption 
(at Athens) does not appear to have had the same originality 
and power as at Rome, nor to have been surrounded with cere- 
monies as solemn, nor to have so pro- 
Contrast between foundly influenced the situation of the 
Adoption at Athens adopted. . . . The law at Athens had 
and at Rome. not the same power to create artificial 

bonds as at Rome ; this parent of choice 
that adoption created was not to the same degree identified with 



ADOPTION 



117 



the parent of flesh and blood " {UEloquence Politique et Judi- 
ciaire a Athenes, pp. 367, 369). Perrot observes further, that 
at Rome the adopted son had the same rights as the son by 
birth, but not at Athens. When, however, we consider in de- 
tail the status of the adopted son, and when we reflect upon the 
nature of his duties and the motives for adoption, it will become 
evident, I think, that at Athens the theory of adoption, at least, 
contemplated the bestowal of full rights and privileges upon 
the adopted son. 

That Isaeus appreciated the importance of adoption is evi- 
dent, for he speaks approvingly of it, and also notes its uni- 
versality, both among " Greeks and barbarians " ( Or. 2, 24 ; 
cf. Ihid. §45). And it is evident that the Athenians, as a 
whole, regarded adoption not merely as the right of childless 
men, but as their duty, and a matter in which the state was 
vitally concerned; for Isaeus remarks (7, 30): iravrfs yap ol 

Ti\iVTJ](Teiv fieX\ovT€s TTpopoiav TToiovvTai a<f)S)V avT&p, oiras firj f^cprjuaaovan 
Tovs cr(f)€Tepovs avTwv olkov^, . . . dio Kav airaihes TiX^vrrjcraxriv, aXX ovv 
viov 7roir](rdp,€POi KaTaXeiTrova-i. koi ov p.6vov Idia ravra yiyvoiaKovtriv., aWa 
KoX br)piO(T\.a TO Koivov ttjs iroXeois ovto» tovt '4yva>K(. 

Before entering upon a discussion of the institution of adop- 
tion as practiced by the Athenians, it seems appropriate to 
speak of the dominant motives which prompted the Athenians 
to resort to adoption so frequently. One of the chief motives 

has already been pointed out, namely, the in- 
Motives for fluence of the religious feeling, which made it 
Adoption. obligatory upon the Athenian, for the sake of his 

ancestors, his own welfare, and the prosperity of 
the State, to perpetuate the family line and the family worship 
by insuring for himself male descendants. This religious feel- 
ing explains certain of the regulations concerning adoption 
which might otherwise appear unreasonable; as Jevons ex- 
presses it, " The condition under which adoption was permitted 
by law was naturally determined for the most part with refer- 
ence to the object aimed at " {Manual of Greek Antiquities, 
p. 550). In the 2d oration of Isaeus (§§io, 36, 37), the more 
important motives for adoption, and especially the dominant 
religious motive, are set forth; here a certain Menecles is 
concerned over his childlessness, and adopts a son, " to care for 



Il8 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

him in his old age, to bury him when dead, and ever afterward 
to offer him the customary rites" (cf. Ihid. §25; 12, §§2, 3). 
And accordingly we observe that the speaker and his wife care 
for the father during the latter's lifetime, and give to their son 
the name of the adoptive father (2, 36) ; and that the adopted 
son scrupulously performs all religious rites (cf. Id. 9, 7). 
We observe, also, that the adopted son is expected to care for 
the father's property, when the father has grown old (Id. 7, 
15). The adopted son becomes, indeed, the official representa- 
tive of his adoptive father; thus, in Isaeus 2, 38-39, certain 
oaths of amity are exchanged, not with the father, but with the 
adopted son, as the father's representative; and according to 
another passage from the same speech (§42), the adopted son 
performs various offices in the deme and in the tribe. 

Isaeus speaks in an interesting and sympathetic manner of 
the beneficent effects of adoption, as affording to childless men 
comfort in life and security against loneliness. He says (2, 

13} • o yap vofioB€Ti]s, a> avbpes, 8ia tovto tov vofiov edr]<fp ovTios, opav fiovrjt/ 
ravTTju KUTacfivyTjv ovcrav rrjs epTj/xias Kal iTapa'^v)(r]v tov ^lov Tois aTTaiai Ta>p 
avBpciiTaiVf TO €^u,vai iroirjaraadai op riva ap ^ovXtoprai. 

In addition to such primary and fundamental motives for 
adoption as these, secondary motives are sometimes seen. 
Thus, in Isaeus 2, 20, the good will of the Menecles, above 
mentioned, toward the family of the adopted son, is represented 
as a motive for adoption. Again, it appears from Isaeus 10, 
17, that it was sometimes customary for parents who were poor 
to give their sons in adoption into a wealthy family, in order 
that the sons might escape their parents' disabilities. 

It is clear, I think, from the foregoing citations, that the 
adopted son's duties were practically identical with those of the 
son by birth. 

Proceeding now to an examination of the regulations of the 
Athenians concerning adoption, we find that the adoptive power 
was restricted in many directions. And, first of all, it is to 
be noted that adoption could regularly take place only when 
both parties interested were citizens of Athens (see Jevons, 
Manual of Greek Antiquities, p. 551; Schomann, Antiquities 
of Greece, p. 357, n. i), — a restriction which seems perfectly 
natural, when we bear in mind the attitude of the State toward 



ADOPTION 



119 



the family and the religious cult. And al- 
Restrictions though it is possible that all phratries did not 
in Adoption, require that the adoptive son should be an 
Athenian citizen (see Der aftische Process, p. 
543), yet it was certainly the established rule that the Athe- 
nian father, when presenting an own son or an adoptive son 
to the members of his phratry, his clansmen, or his demesmen, 
made oath that the son was born of a duly wedded wife who 
was an Athenian citizen* (Isae. 2, 14; 7, §§15, 16; 8, 19; 
Dem. 57, 54; [Dem.] 59, 60). 

Every Athenian who proposed to adopt a son must be of age 
himself — 18 or over (see Jevons, op. cit. pp. 458, 550; Der 
attische Process, p. 544) . No woman was permitted to adopt, 
since, as we have hitherto seen, she was held to be incapable of 
either carrying on the religious observances, or of discharging 
the obligations to the State. Other conditions under which 
adoption could take place are enumerated in part of a law found 
in Pseudo-Demosthenes (46, 14). Here we observe that a 
man could dispose of his property by will according to his 
pleasure, — in other words, exercise the power of adoption, — if 
he had no legitimate sons,t if he was not mentally incapacitated 
by old age, or by drugs, or by disease, or influenced by a 
woman, or under constraint.^ Isaeus makes many references 
to this law (e. g. i, 11 ; 2, §§13, 14; 3, i ; 4, §§14, 16; 6, 9), 
and especially emphasizes the requirements that the Athenian 
who contemplated adoption should have no legitimate sons,§ 

* In Andocides, i, 127, the speaker, in telling the story of Callias, 
and speaking of the presentation of the latter's son, makes no mention 
of the customary oath as to the child's mother. But we cannot con- 
clude from this that the oath as to the child's parentage was not regu- 
larly required ; arguments ex silentio are obviously unsafe, and, apart 
from this, we must remember that Callias' course of conduct is described 
as unnatural and reprehensible throughout. 

t This rule does not appear to have been operative in case an Athenian 
father had formally repudiated a son (see Der attische Process, p. 

544)- 

t With regard to the somewhat ambiguous language found at the 
beginning of the passage, boot fifj kTTETToirjvTo^ uare fir/Te aTzenreiv fiijf emSiKda- 
aodai, ore I,6?.uv elayet ttjv cipxv^y k. r. A., see Wyse's remarks {Commentary, 
pp. 248-249). 

§ An Athenian father of legitimate sons was apparently permitted, 
however, to adopt a son by will provisionally, on condition that the 



120 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

should not disinherit his daughters, and should be in the full 
possession of his physical and intellectual powers. And such 
requirements as these were entirely reasonable ; for, keeping in 
view the primary motives for adoption, it was entirely unneces- 
sary that the Athenian, who already had a male heir, should 
adopt a son; and since, furthermore, adoption was equivalent 
to willing away property from the next of kin, who would 
otherwise inherit, it was highly desirable that the Athenian who 
contemplated such a step should be in the full possession of his 
mental powers. 

If an Athenian had a daughter, but no sons, he could adopt a 
son by will, but only on condition that the prospective son by 
adoption should marry the daughter — as we have previously 
noted * (cf. Isae. 3, §§ 42, 68 ff. ; 10, 13) ; and the same con- 
dition would apparently hold when an Athe- 
Marriage of nian adopted a son inter vivos ( [Dem.] 41, 
Daughter and 3). The reasons for this are clear and have 
Adopted Son. already been foreshadowed ; the Athenian law 
required that the inheritance be kept within 
the family ; and, as the daughter was disqualified to possess the 
estate for herself, and to perform the duties of the heir, the 
difficulty was solved by requiring the daughter to marry the 
adoptive son. The Athenian citizen could also accomplish the 
desired result by adopting his daughter's son, in case the daugh- 
ter was already married (see Jevons, Manual of Greek An- 
tiquities, p. 550). 

We observe that the adopted son, on gaining the inheritance, 
was forbidden to adopt in turn. If sons were born to him they 
became the heirs ; but if he died without leaving a son by birth 



adoption should take effect only in case his own sons died before 
reaching their majority ([Dem.] 46, 24; cf. Der attische Process, p. 
545)- Wyse, however, is sceptical on this point (see Commentary, pp. 
185-186). 

* An Athenian was precluded by law from adopting a stepson, in 
case he had daughters of his own by the mother of the stepson ; for, 
on the one hand, the daughters could not be disinherited; nor, on the 
other hand, could the stepson marry a half-sister who was the daughter 
of his own mother (see Isae. 8, 40, and Wyse's note, Commentary, 
p. 621). .J 



ADOPTION 121 

as his representative in the house of his adoption, the inherit- 
ance reverted to the original house of the adoptive father, and 
was claimed by the next of kin ( [Dem.] 44, §§23, 63-65, Gy- 
68; 46, 14). In the second of the passages just cited, the 

speaker very clearly explains the reason 
Restrictions im- for these regulations. He says : " Is it 
posed upon the not evident that each one of you is ex- 
Adopted Son. eluded from the right of inheritance, 

whenever the privilege of adopting in turn 
is accorded to adopted children? For you observe that many 
men adopt sons when under the influence of flattery, or in a 
spirit of hostility, because of differences with their relatives. 
If, now, it shall be permitted to the adopted son, contrary to 
the law, to adopt whomsoever he may choose, the inheritance 
will never be given to the kinsmen. To guard against this 
contingency, the legislator forbade a person who was himself 
adopted to create a son by adoption." 

As further illustrating the restrictions imposed upon the 
adopted son, we may note that the laws of Solon did not allow 
the adopted person even to bequeath by will the property which 
he found in the house of his adoptive family ([Dem.] 44, 67). 

Again, it would seem that the adopted son did not neces- 
sarily receive the entire inheritance. Thus, we are informed by 
the speaker in the 5th oration of Isaeus, that the adopted son 
and heir of a certain Dicaeogenes received by will only one- 
third of the property (§6) ; the remaining two-thirds were 
claimed by the sisters of the testator. Nevertheless, in accord- 
ance with the religious idea, even under such circumstances 
the adopted son became the testator's duly appointed represen- 
tative, and as such was expected to carry on the family worship 
and perpetuate the name ; it is evident, in short, that under no 
circumstances was the heir absolved from these sacred obliga- 
tions (see Jevons, Manual of Greek Antiquities, p. 550). 

The two principal forms or methods of adoption are referred 
to in the 2d oration of Isaeus (§14), where the speaker shows 
that he was adopted during the lifetime of the deceased, — not, 
as sometimes happens, after the testator's death, by will, — and 
was presented to the members of the phratry, of the clan, and 
of the deme, of his adoptive father. In another passage from 



122 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

the same oration (§44), the speaker reiter- 
Adoption under ates the fact that he was adopted by act of 
a Will and the deceased during the latter's lifetime ; 

" Inter Vivos." and the language of the speaker clearly 
indicates that this method of adoption was 
preferable to the other and more binding. Further, in the 7th 
oration (§§i, 2), the speaker states that adoption performed 
during the lifetime of the adoptive father, attended by the per- 
formance of sacred rites, and accompanied by presentation to 
the kinsmen and enrollment in their records, is less open to 
suspicion than adoption under a will ; the latter method, in fact, 
is never sure. 

Thus it is evident that those sons who were adopted inter 
vivos had a distinct advantage over the sons adopted by will. 
In fact, it is clearly shown throughout Isaeus' 2d oration — as 
indicated above — that the son duly admitted into the relation 
of adoption during the lifetime of his adoptive father was prac- 
tically on an equality with the son by birth, and immediately 
entered upon the son's full rights (cf. Isae. 3, §§59 ff.). On 
the other hand, the son adopted by will could not receive 
recognition as the heir, until he had established before the 
court the validity of the will (Isae. 6, 3 ; 3, 60; 9, 3 ; 10, 9; 
[Dem.] 44, 19) — a situation in sharp contrast with the posi- 
tion of the son by birth, who, without interference, and without 
process of law, entered immediately upon the possession of his 
inheritance (Isae. 3, §§59-61). 

It is possible, however, that the son adopted inter vivos, 
although under no obligation to claim the inheritance by law, 
did sometimes so claim, for legal reasons (see Wyse, p. 345). 
But there can be no doubt that the position of the son adopted 
by will was exceedingly perilous. We observe that four of 
Isaeus' orations (the 4th, 5th, 9th, and loth) are directed 
against sons adopted by will; and Isaeus tell? us (3, 61) — 
referring unquestionably to sons adopted by will, as is evident 
from the context — that all relatives consider themselves justi- 
fied in disputing the claims of adopted sons ; further, that " all 
adopted sons claim at law." * 

* Wyse (p. 345) objects to this statement on the part of Isaeus, on 
the ground that the orator is thus virtually identifying the position of 



ADOPTION 



123 



A particularly striking passage, illustrating the perils of the 
adopted son, and the unblushing effrontery with which false 
claimants appeared when a rich inheritance was in dispute, 
occurs in Isaeus' 4th speech (§§7, ff.)- I shall have occasion 
to refer to this passage later in connection with another topic. 

The orators record instances of a third form of adoption, 
which sometimes took place when the deceased had neither left 
a son nor made a will ; under these circumstances, the next of 
kin was expected to perform the adoption, in order that the 
family and its sacra should not become extinct (see [Dem.] 
44, 43; cf. Sir Wm. Jones, Works, Vol. iv, p. 231). This is 
sometimes called " posthumous adoption," to distinguish it from 
the other forms mentioned above. An instance 
Posthumous of this form of adoption is found in Isaeus 11, 
Adoption. 49 ; here a certain Theopompus gives his son in 

adoption into the family of his wife's deceased 
brother, since the latter has died intestate and childless. A 
reference to this third form of adoption is found also in Isaeus 
7, §§31, 44. Here the adoption should evidently have taken 
place, but had not been performed; the wife of a certain 
Pronapes and her sister had already inherited the property of 
their brother, but had ignored the obligation to appoint one of 
their children his legal representative. 

It is possible that the archon was sometimes called upon to 
perform the act of posthumous adoption into the house of a 
deceased and childless person in order to save such a house 
from extinction, in case no heirs had been found among the 

the son adopted by will with that of the son adopted inter vivos, and 
that he does so deliberately, with the view of misleading the judges. 
But it seems to me that Isaeus is here presenting a general contrast 
between the status of children born in lawful wedlock and that of 
children adopted under a will ; the latter are specifically mentioned in 
§60, and the general statement which closely follows — to the effect that 
all adopted sons claim at law — would obviously refer, I think, to sons 
adopted under a will, even though Isaeus does not say so specifically. 
The thought is perfectly obvious from the context; the orator clearly 
has in mind adopted sons of the class just mentioned, and omits, in the 
latter part of the passage under discussion, to make mention of a will 
in connection with the reference to the fact of adoption, in order, I 
should say, to avoid an unnecessary repetition. 



124 ^^^ ATHENIAN FAMILY 

relatives or distant kinsfolk; the matter is not indisputably 
clear, however (see Wyse, p. 576). 

The act of adoption was not, under all circumstances, per- 
petually binding. Thus, from Isaeus 10, 11, it is seen that an 
adopted son could return to his father's house,* if he left a son 
of his own to take his place in the house of his adoption; as 
Isaeus expresses it in another passage (6, 

AaOptlOn not 44) > ^ y^P vofxos ovk ea (TravUvai, tav fj-f) viov Kara- 

always perpet- XinTjyv^cnov (cf. Id. 9, 33; 10, 11; [Dem.] 44, 
ually Binding. §§33, 46, 47, 64). While there can be no 
doubt of the right of the adopted son, in 
such a case as this, to renounce — dTremelv — his adoption 
( [Dem.] 46, 14), we are unable to state explicitly what further 
conditions accompanied such a renunciation. Meier & Scho- 
mann express the belief that the Athenian and his adoptive son 
could dissolve the relationship by mutual agreement (Der at- 
tische Process, p. 548). Demosthenes records an instance — 
previously referred to in other connections — in which an Athe- 
nian and his adoptive son became estranged, whereupon the 
irate parent takes his daughter from her husband — the adopt- 
ive son — and gives her in marriage to another, thus dissolving 
the relationship with the first adoptive son (Dem. 41, §§3, 4). 
Again, we observe that every adopted son retains his interest 
in his mother's property, whether he remains in the family of 
his adoption or not f (Isae. 7, 25) ; but, on the other hand, he 

*Wyse (p, 645) says of the law which regulated the return of the 
adoptive son to his original family : " The curious results which flowed 
from this law may be seen in [Dem.] 44. 21 sqq., 46 sqq. Leocrates I, 
the adoptive son of Archiades returned to his natural family, leaving 
his son Leostratus in his place as son of Archiades. Leostratus in 
due time returned to the family of his father Leocrates I, and left his 
son Leocrates II as son of Archiades. Thus Archiades had in succes- 
sion three adoptive sons, and, so far as the law was concerned, appar- 
ently might have had an indefinite number but for the death of Leocrates 
II without a son who could serve as a substitute." 

t Meier & Schomann (pp. 546, 547) explain the fact that the adopted 
son's relations to his mother, in either case, remain unchanged, on the 
principle presented in Isaeus 7, 25 : fiTjrpbg (V ovdetg kanv eKTzoirjTOQ. It is 
evident that the adoptive son could still inherit from his own mother 
and was still responsible for her support, in case she had need of it. 
Keeping in mind the primary object of adoption, it is evident that 



ADOPTION 



125 



severs his relations with his own father and with the family of 

the latter, as soon as he is given in adop- 
The Adopted tion into another house (Id. 10, 4), unless 

Son and his he returns to his original family according 

Original Family, to law (Id. 9, 33). Isaeus (9, 2) tells us 

of a certain Cleon and his son, who, 
having been adopted into another family, have no claim on the 
estate of one Astyphilus. A very striking illustration of the fact 
that the adopted son severs his connection with his original 
family is found in Isaeus 5, 47, where the speaker points out 
that the adopted son can claim no favors from the State on the 
ground of illustrious ancestry; he has severed his connection 
with the family of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, to be adopted 
into another house; and has thereby deprived himself of all 
privileges attaching to the descendants of such distinguished 
men. 

We observe that the adopted son was peculiarly indebted to 
the State, since by favor of the State he possessed his inherit- 
ance. Isaeus expresses this in the 5th oration (§37) : olx o 

naTTjp avT^ rffv noWriv ovaiav KareXiirev, aXX vfieis edor^ ttj ^7(f)cO' 1 hese 

words are addressed to the jury, and the 
The Adopted Son orator refers to the adopted son. Here 
and the State. the speaker strikes the keynote of the 

oration; and the enormity of the offense 
of neglecting to serve the State is powerfully set forth (§§35 
ff., §§41 ff.). And naturally the State was vitally interested in 
the matter of adoption (see Isae. 7, 30), since, as I have en- 
deavored to show, any interruption in the family line would 
probably result in the discontinuance of the family cult, and in 
the loss of services to the State. 

It is evident that the Athenians approved of the practice of 
adopting a relative, whenever possible (Isae. 2, 20; 6, 6; 7, 
§§4, 43). Schomann calls attention to the fact that before 
Solon's time the law permitted an Athenian to adopt none but 

nothing would have been gained by severing the adoptive son's rela- 
tions with his own mother ; and that the continuance of these relations 
might prove to be an advantage. On the other hand, it would unques- 
tionably have complicated matters to permit the adopted son to con- 
tinue his relations with his natural father. 



126 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

a relative, and that after Solon's time the Athenians kept to 
the old limitation by the force of custom {Antiquities of Greece, 
P- 357 J cf. Plut. Sol. 21 ; Dem. 20, 102). The 
Adoption of motives which prompted to this course of ac- 
Relatives. tion were clearly identical with those which im- 

pelled a man to give a daughter in marriage to 
a relative, namely, to keep the inheritance within the family, 
and to insure the fulfillment of all religious and civic obliga- 
tions ; for family pride, natural impulses, and the force of 
hereditary associations would naturally impel such an adoptive 
son to carry on zealously the family worship, and to discharge 
the other obligations devolving upon the head of an Athenian 
family. 

With respect to the adoption of a daughter, Jebb {Selections 
from the Attic Orators, p. 383) remarks: " The adoption of a 
daughter was comparatively rare, since, unless a son was born 
to her, the continuance of the oXkos was not secured. Such ex- 
ceptions illustrate the use of the Attic adoption to gratify a 
personal preference, apart from the original ob- 
Adoption of ject of perpetuating the family rites." Two in- 
Daughters. stances of adoption of this character are re- 
corded by Isaeus, in each of which a niece is 
adopted {Or. 11, §§8, 41). Another somewhat peculiar in- 
stance of adoption is mentioned by Isaeus, in which a certain 
Apollodorus makes a will leaving his property to his half-sister, 
and naming her future husband, thus apparently acquiring a 
father's rights over her, in so far, at least, as the power of 
arranging for her marriage was concerned {Or. 7, 9; cf. Der 
attische Process, p. 505) ; we observe, however, that the adop- 
tion was to take effect only in the event of Apollodorus' death. 

The adoption of a grandson seems rarely to have taken place 
among the Athenians; Wyse (p. 617) notes only three un- 
questionable instances ([Plut.] Vit. X. Or. 843 A; [Dem.] 42, 
§§21, 27; 43, 37), and observes in this connection: " It is ob- 
vious that by adopting a daughter's son a man could guard 
against the troubles caused by contentions for the hand of an 
€niK\r]pos and defeat the designs of rapacious relatives." 

The ceremonies of adoption, which appear to have been 
marked by great solemnity, are described by Isaeus in the 7th 



ADOPTION 



127 



oration (§§14, ff., 2y ff.). Here we observe that at the 
festival of Thargeha the speaker was brought 
Ceremonies to the altars in the presence of the kinsmen 
of Adoption, and members of the phratria; and that the 
adoptive father then made the customary oath 
that the speaker was bom of a duly wedded wife who was a 
citizen of Athens — ceremonies similar to those which accom- 
panied the presentation and enrollment of a son by birth, as 
we have previously observed (cf. Isae. 8, §§19, 20). We have 
heretofore noted the importance of these presentation ceremo- 
nies, as evidencing the legitimacy of the son by birth; and it 
is clear that such a presentation was customary and desirable, 
as a precautionary measure, in order to establish the legal and 
social position of the adopted child (Isae. 2, 14; 7, 16). 



CHAPTER VIII. 
Leading Aspects of the Athenian Inheritance System. 

It is not the intention of the writer to enter, at this point, 
into an elaborate discussion of the Athenian law of inheritance, 
but to present very briefly certain important principles of Athe- 
nian succession, in so far as they affected the family, or the 
individual, or the relations of either to the State. 

In the first place, it is obvious that the same fundamental 
ideas which dominated the Athenians in all their family rela- 
tions — namely, the idea of the perpetuity of the family and 
the domestic cult, and of the fulfillment of all obligations to the 

State — were also operative throughout 
Leading Ideas in their inheritance system. The au- 

Athenian Succession, thors of Der attische Process (p. 

540) , speaking of the principles of in- 
heritance in connection with the various forms of adoption, and 
particularly in connection with posthumous adoption, remark: 
" Bei dieser dritten Art muss man sich nur an die leitende Idee 
des Attischen Erbrechts erinnern, wonach man in Athen vor- 
ziigliche Sorgfalt darauf richtete, dass kein bestehender Haus- 
stand (oIkos) eingehe, und dass der Erbe nicht bios Erbe des 
Vermogens, sondern auch Stellvertreter der Person des Ver- 
storbenen in Riicksicht auf personliche, Familien- und Gentili- 
tatsrechte und Pflichten werde." 

Again, we observe that in the whole question of inheritances 
and of the classification of heirs, the males received the prefer- 
ence, whether in the direct line or in the collateral branches. 
Isaeus (7, 20) cites the law which gives the preference to male 

neirs . Kpareiv oe rovs appevas Kat tovs eK tcov appevav. 
Preference ol av €< rStv avT&v Sat, kov ytvei aTTODTepoi Ti;y;^aj>a)(riv ovres. 

for Males. (Cf. [Dem.] 43,51.) The interpretation of this 
passage has occasioned much controversy,f but 

* Isaeus, unfortunately, in the passage cited (see §§18-26), undertakes 
to apply the law exclusively to the case of first cousins and relatives 
more distant than first cousins, whereas the principle is clearly one of 
universal application (see Or. 11, §§i ff. [Dem.] 44, §§12 ff.)> as Wyse 
clearly points out (pp. 560 ff.). 

t See Der attische Process, p. 586 ; Thalheim-Hermann, Griechischen 
Re cht Salter turner, p. 64. 



THE ATHENIAN INHERITANCE SYSTEM 



129 



(understanding an ellipsis of e^ hvrep al 6rjkiiai) it is probably to 
be rendered as follows : " Preference shall be given to males 
and the descendants of males (over females and the descend- 
ants of females) if the males have the same origin (as the 
females), even if they (the males) are in degree more distant 
(from the common ancestor)" (see Wyse, Commentary, pp. 564 
fif.). The same law is again referred to by Isaeus (11, 17), 
and by Pseudo-Demosthenes (44, 62). The principle is also 
seen in the right of the nearest male relative to inherit the 
property, in case a man dies intestate and childless ([Dem.] 
44, §§12, 14; Isae. 4, §§15, 23; 5, 16). One of the chief 
reasons for this — namely, the thought that only a male heir 
was properly qualified to carry on the religious observances in- 
herited from his predecessor — is admirably brought out by 
Perrot {U Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes, pp. 379- 
380) : " A I'origine, comme le dit M. Fustel, ' la descendance 
en ligne masculine etablissait seule entre deux hommes le rap- 
port religieux qui permettait a Tun de continuer le culte de 
I'autre. La religion n'admettait pas de parente par les femmes. 
Les enfants de deux soeurs ou d'une soeur et d'un frere n'avait 
entre eux aucun lien et n'appartenaient ni a la meme religion 
domestique ni a la meme famille.' II s'ensuivait qu'ils ne pou- 
vaient heriter les uns des autres." 

It is interesting to note that the laws of Solon made no men- 
tion of succession by ascending grades,— the " melancholy 
succession," as it has been called, — since, as Perrot observes, 
" the whole thought that dominated the ancient right of suc- 
cession was to assure by inheritance the 
No "Melancholy perpetuity of the family" (op. cit. p. 
Succession" among 377; cf. Wyse, p. 693). Here we have 
the Athenians. an explanation of the phenomenon of 

collateral relations receiving the prefer- 
ence over the heirs by ascent ; for it is evident that the brother 
or cousin, still young, married, or likely to be, was better quali- 
fied to undertake the duties of the heir than the father or 
mother, already old, or the grandfather, still more aged. Per- 
rot remarks further {op. cit. pp. 377-378), that this tendency 
went so far among the Athenians that there was sometimes 
danger of the aged parents dying in misery, while the rich 
inheritance of their son went to distant cousins. 



130 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 



The opening sections of Isaeus' nth oration inform us in 
regard to the inheritance rights of collateral kinsfolk, when an 
Athenian citizen had died without leaving lineal 
Inheritance heirs. We observe that under these circum- 
Rights of stances the Attic law called the collateral rela- 
CoUaterals. tives to the succession in the following order: 
(i) Brothers inherited, being sons of the 
same father as the deceased. 

(2) Such brothers' children inherited, males and females 
having an equal right. 

(3) Sisters by the same father received the inheritance. 

(4) Such sisters' children inherited, males and females 
having an equal right. 

(5) First cousins (are^toi) on the father's side inherited, 
males being preferred to females. 

(6) Children of such first cousins {avt^\n.aho1) inherited, with 
a like preference;* and beyond this relationship the right of 
inheritance — ayxt-fmla — ^apparently did not extend, in so far as 
regards collateral descendants on the father's side. 

Finally, in the absence of any heirs of the classes enumerated 
above, we observe that the inheritance reverted to the maternal 
side, and that the next heirs were (7) brothers born of the same 
mother as the deceased, and so on.f In the case of the heirs 
of the last class, Isaeus tells us {Ihid. §2) that they inherit in 
the same order as do the kinsfolk on the father's side. And 
the fact that Athenian law called to the succession kinsfolk of 
the deceased on the father's side down to first cousins once 

* It seems improbable that the expression used by Isaeus in the 2d 
section of the oration, fiexpi aveipiav Tzaidov, is to be interpreted as mean- 
ing " as far as descendants of first cousins," even though certain emi- 
nent scholars do so understand the phrase (e. g., Thalheim-Hermann, 
op. cit. p. 68; cf. Der attische Process^ p. 585). Wyse objects to 
this interpretation and very properly asks : " What is the use of 
a limit that is in perpetual motion? The only natural meaning 
of jLtixpt aveipiuv rraiduv is, up to, and including, sons and daughters 
of first cousins. Whether we look at the rights of succession, or at 
the duties of the blood-feud, or at the honors owed to the dead, we 
discover on all sides that the ayxi-(^Teia was a conception that could not 
be extended indefinitely" (Commentary, pp. 566 ff.)- 

t See Sir Richard Jebb's summary (Attic Orators, 11, p. 357). 



THE ATHENIAN INHERITANCE SYSTEM 



131 



removed (Isae. 7, 22), before admitting any relatives on the 
mother's side, strikingly illustrates the preference which the 
Attic law accorded to the male line. 

Of course the direct descendants are the natural and inev- 
itable heirs — inevitable, because of the obligations of the head 
of the family and his successors to religion and to the State. 
The direct descendants, whether sons or grandsons — and it is 
clear that the succession of grandsons, as well as that of sons, 
was carefully protected by the Attic law (Isae. 8, 34) — take im- 
mediate possession of the inheritance, while the collaterals must 
resort to law (see Der attische Process, p. 573). 

The general character of the Athenian law of succession, as 
it appears in Isaeus, is well set forth by Perrot in his delightful 
work, V Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes. Perrot 
speaks of the Athenian system as a compromise between the 

primitive law of the family, — although 
General Character of not wholly dominated by a religious 
Athenian Succession, idea so uncompromising as the early 

family law implies, — and that system 
of law, " founded upon equity and reason, which the great 
Roman jurists of the 2d and 3d centuries of our era were labor- 
ing to establish, under the influence of Greek philosophy." In 
the Attic law, Perrot thinks, there are everywhere found traces 
of a distant past; certain traditions and practices can only be 
explained by beliefs already declining. Concessions and modi- 
fications are appearing; there is lack of harmony between law 
and custom, " between the hard logic of the institutions of the 
past and the new needs of the conscience " {op. cit. pp. 384- 

385)- 

With a few observations as to the general attitude of the 
Athenian tribunals with respect to the execution of the wills 
of deceased Athenians, this chapter will be concluded. 

One would naturally expect that, in view of the extreme 
solicitude of the individual with regard to his heir, and in view 
of the attitude of the State toward the family and the religious 
cult, the Athenian citizens who voted in the law courts, and 
who temporarily represented the city of Athens, would have 
regarded it as a sacred duty to carry out scrupulously the 
wishes of every property owner. But, unfortunately, we find 



132 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

that the wishes of Athenian testators were frequently disre- 
garded ; that the judges often took great liberties with testa- 
ments, and rarely hesitated to follow their own sympathies and 

preferences ; and, furthermore, that false claim- 
Recklessness ants came forward and demanded estates with 
of Athenian the most unblushing effrontery. Thus, in the 
Tribunals. 9th oration of Isaeus (§§i, ff., and especially 

§§7-13), we read of an attack on a duly at- 
tested will which is truly amazing. Here the speaker makes 
no attempt to overthrow the credibility of the witnesses by 
inquiring into their reputations or antecedents ; he deals with 
probabilities, and demands the abrogation of the will largely on 
the presumption of the testator's intentions ! 

Another passage, illustrating, in a picturesque manner, the 
perils which beset even a duly authorized heir, and the brazen 
audacity of false claimants, is found in Isaeus' 4th oration 
(§§7, ff.). Here the speaker, after referring ironically to the 
readiness with which a false claimant would shave his head in 
token of grief for the deceased, whenever a rich inheritance was 
in dispute, continues : " Who would not wear a garb of 
mourning, as though by reason of his grief he would gain the 
inheritance ? And how many kinsmen and sons adopted by will 
claimed the estate of Nicostratus? Demosthenes said that he 
vv^as the nephew of the deceased; and when he had been con- 
victed of falsehood .... he retired. And Telephus said that 
Nicostratus had given to him all his possessions; and this 
fellow not long afterwards relinquished his claims." The 
speaker then mentions several other false claimants who suc- 
cessively appeared and retired, and finally the principal claim- 
ant, who first demanded the inheritance on grounds of kinship, 
and then under a will (cf. Id. i, 21). 

Again, in the Wasps of Aristophanes (583-586) the old 
dicast tells how he and his associates set wills aside whenever 
it suits their pleasure, and even refuse to permit the daughter 
of a deceased Athenian — the l7riKXr)pos — to marry the man whom 
her father had selected as her future husband : 

Kav d7roBvT](TKa>v 6 naTrjp to) 5a> AcaraXeiTro)!/ irald enLKXtjpoVf 
KXddv rifxfls fiaKpd ttjv Ke(})a\rjp e'lTTOvres rrj diaOrjKjf 
Kal Tjy KoyxD ttj ttSw afpivais rot? (Tr]p,(ioicriv enovart}, 
cdopfv TavTTjv Bans av Tjpdi dvTi^okr](ras dpaneldr). 



THE ATHENIAN INHERITANCE SYSTEM 133 

It is astonishing and painful to think that an Athenian tribunal 
should have deliberately ignored anything so sacred as the 
rights of the lawful heiress, and the last wishes of the father 
as to his representative and successor; but I can see no reason 
to doubt that Aristophanes is here actually reflecting Greek 
life. Such a manifestation of recklessness and infidelity to 
duty on the part of a large body of responsible citizens cer- 
tainly reflects most unfavorably on Athenian character and 
Athenian judicial methods. 



CHAPTER IX. 

Conclusion. 

As we contemplate Athenian private life in the retrospect, 
and endeavor to formulate our impressions with regard to its 
more important aspects, several distinct and striking peculiari- 
ties suggest themselves to us. First of all, 
Leading As- we note the dominating influence of ancestor 
pects of Greek worship, and the uncompromising demands 
Family Life. of the State upon the family and the indi- 
vidual. These were very real factors in 
Athenian life ; and although the influence of ancestor worship, 
during the times of the orators, seems to be losing its original 
potency, and to exist, at times, as a theoretical and traditional, 
rather than a vital force, yet it is an influence that cannot be 
disregarded ; without a proper appreciation of its significance, 
many of the phenomena of Greek private life, as we have seen, 
would be well-nigh incomprehensible. 

The deplorable position of the Athenian woman, and her 
narrow and isolated life, next attract our attention. Nowhere 
in her career is she properly appreciated ; whether we view her 
in the capacity of daughter, sister, wife, mother, or widow, she 
is invariably subject to the caprice and domination of another, 
and very rarely permitted to assume in the home or the com- 
munity the position of honor which should have been accorded 
her. And if she happened to occupy the position of an heiress, 
then her lot in life was indeed perilous. To be claimed hi 
marriage by an elderly uncle who cared only for the fruits of 
the inheritance which accompanied her, or by a youthful cousin 
for whom she may have had a particular aversion, was bad 
enough; but it was infinitely worse to feel that, even though 
she enjoyed the fortune of being happily wedded, yet she might, 
at any time, be torn from her husband, and compelled to enter 
new marriage relations, in case her father had left no sons, or 
her brother, himself the heir, had died. And even though she 



CONCLUSION 



135 



escaped all other perils, yet she was constantly confronted by 
the thought that she and her husband were considered of minor 
importance as compared with her son — the heir of the estate ; 
and that this son would some day sweep them aside and enjoy 
for himself the inheritance which had cost his parents so dear. 

This, of course, is the darker side of the picture. It would 
be palpably unfair to ignore the brighter side, and to eliminate 
from our sketch all that is cheerful and charming, and more in 
accord with the idealism of to-day. And there can be little 
doubt that many of the attractive portraits which are found in 
Greek literature were not the creations of the author's imagina- 
tion, but represented actually existing types. And still, when 
we view the situation as a whole, we are forced to acknowledge 
that such ideal types were comparatively rare ; that it is not 
the lights, but the shadows, which, after all, predominate ; and 
that the picture, in its general aspects, is distinctly sombre. 

In forming our final estimate of the Athenian woman's lot, 
we must, however, endeavor to place ourselves in the position 
of the Athenians, so far as is possible ; and, in particular, we 
must take into consideration the influence of ancestor worship, 
the stern demands of the inheritance laws, and the obligations 
which every Athenian citizen owed to the State. These in- 
fluences rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for the men of 
Athens to assign to the women of their commonwealth positions 
of influence in society, or to regard them with anything even 
approaching the esteem and respect with which women are 
regarded to-day. The Athenian woman's position was not, 
after all, at variance with the hard logic of the old institutions. 
We must constantly bear in mind — as I have heretofore en- 
deavored to point out — that the obligations of the citizen to 
religion and to the State were considered of paramount im- 
portance. Inasmuch, then, as the woman was held to be dis- 
qualified to serve the family and the State by performing the 
religious duties which devolved upon the heir, as well as in- 
capable of discharging the arduous and expensive public ser- 
vices that fell to the lot of the head of an influential family, — 
therefore, from the point of view of the individual and the 
State, it was thought proper that she should occupy a wholly 
subordinate position in the inheritance system. It was cruel, 



136 THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 

and yet it was doubtless inevitable ; and perhaps it did not seem 
altogether odious and intolerable to the Athenian woman 
herself. 

But, even after making all possible allowances, we cannot 
excuse the men of Pericles' time for the selfishness, lack of 
appreciation, and — from our point of view — downright cruelty, 
which too often characterized their attitude toward the other 
sex. All that was most beautiful and sacred in a woman's 
life was apparently in danger of being ruthlessly shattered at 
any moment, and especially if she happened to be so unfortu- 
nate as to have inherited an estate ; she was treated, at times, 
almost as if she were a being apart from ordinary humanity. 
Her sad and isolated life, during the brilliant period of Athens' 
political and intellectual supremacy, constitutes one of the most 
astonishing phenomena in the history of the Greek states. 

And finally, as we conclude our brief survey of Athenian 
social life, we are impressed by the lack of independent au- 
thority on the part of the husband and father, and the conse- 
quent weakness of the family in all its relations. Nothing 
even approaching the effectiveness of the Roman patria 
potestas is found among the Athenians. The powerlessness of 
the Athenian father to preserve the integrity of his family, and 
the encroachments of the inheritance laws upon the most sacred 
rights of the members of the family, and especially of the hus- 
band and wife, constituted one of the most serious defects in 
the Athenian social system. And yet the Athenians unquestion- 
ably believed that, in subordinating the family so completely to 
the State, they were insuring their own welfare and the per- 
manency of their institutions ; whereas, instead of providing 
for the perpetuity of Athens, they were actually hastening their 
political downfall. 

In conclusion, it must be admitted that the family life of the 
Athenians in the times of the orators was full of peril. Domi- 
nated as the family relations were by the 
obligations to the ancestors and to the State, 
Our J:iinal neither husband, wife, son, nor daughter 

Impressions. ^^^j^ ^^jj ^j^^j^ j-^^^g ^^^^ ^^^ happiness 

might be shattered. There was something 
radically wrong in a social system in which the very bulwarks 



CONCLUSION 137 

of society — the sanctity of married life and the integrity of the 
family — were likely to be ruthlessly attacked at any moment. 
Far more pleasing is the picture of the old Roman father sur- 
rounded by his family; a father stern and often cruel, if you 
will, but secure in the possession of his own, — a mighty force 
in the massive and long-enduring Roman civilization. 

It is amazing that the Athenians, with all their intellectual 
power and keenness, with their exquisite sense of proportion, 
and with their ardent admiration for the ideally beautiful, — it 
is amazing that they should have tolerated such abuses, and 
ignored the very safeguards of their national life. In their 
superstitious fear lest they should offend some deified ancestor, 
they trampled upon the most sacred rights of the individual and 
the family; they wronged the living in their efforts to honor 
the dead. While endeavoring to create a more powerful social 
and governmental fabric, they struck a deadly blow at indi- 
vidual liberty; theirs was the fatal error of destroying the 
integrity of the component parts, while striving to create a 
more perfect whole. In the ultimate analysis of the conditions 
which confront us, it is impossible to deny that the individual 
and the family existed for the State. The Athenians of the 
period of Isaeus and Demosthenes, it is true, had evidently 
begun to realize that their point of view was fundamentally 
wrong, and that the institutions of the past were insufficient 
for the larger life and the changed conditions which had arisen. 
But, even though they may have awakened to a consciousness 
of their past errors, and of the perils still impending, the 
awakening came too late ; the fatal mischief had been wrought ; 
and the abuses which had sprung up and had been fostered for 
so long a period of years, were already bearing their deadly 
fruit. There can be little doubt that the weakness of the 
Athenian family in all its relations, coupled with the failure on 
the part of the men of Athens to appreciate the proper relations 
to be observed between the family — collectively and individu- 
ally — and the State, contributed in no small degree to the 
early downfall of Athenian political power. 



VITA. 

Charles Albert Savage was born in Stockbridge, Massachu- 
setts, September 4, 1866. During his boyhood he attended 
various schools in Montreal, Canada, in Stockbridge, and in 
New Jersey, and particularly the high schools of Stockbridge 
and of Plainfield, New Jersey. He moved with his family to 
St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1882 ; and after working for two years 
in a business office, he graduated from the high school of St. 
Paul in 1885. In the following autumn he entered the Uni- 
versity of Minnesota, and remained in attendance at that insti- 
tution for three years, after which he spent several years in 
business life. He entered Johns Hopkins University in the fall 
of 1894, and received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in June, 
1895. In the following fall he entered the graduate depart- 
ment of Johns Hopkins, and selected as his subjects Greek, 
Latin, and Sanskrit ; he pursued this line of work until January, 
1898, and from October, 1898, to June, 1899. In the summer 
of 1899 he was appointed instructor in Latin at the University 
of Minnesota ; he was made assistant professor of Latin at the 
University of Minnesota in the spring of 1903 ; and in June 
of the same year he received the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy from Johns Hopkins University. In the spring of 
1904 he was made assistant professor of Latin and Greek at 
the University of Minnesota, which position he now holds. 



LBJa'09 



THE ATHENIAN FAMILY 



SOCIOLOGICAL AND LEGAL STUDY 



BASED CHIEFLY ON THE WORKS 



OF 



THE ATTIC ORATORS 



A DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RE^ii-TREMENTS TOR 

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



BY 



CHARLES ALBERT SAVAGE 



BALTIMORE 
190 V 



